Bush for President ... for a 2nd term?

[Gregoshi]

Though things seemed to have calmed down a bit, but I must remind everyone to keep it civil We don't need to be calling others idiots, stupid, etc. Everyone has a right to their own viewpoint and that does not make them idiots if that viewpoint doesn't match yours.

Thank you.

[Dhepee]

I didn't vote in this poll because at this point I am very conflicted.

First of all let me say this about all liberal American Bush bashers, many of you are hypocrites. The GOP, especially the faction led by Gingrich with Limbaugh as spokesman, spent most of the 90's going after the Clintons. Gingrich and company went after him for Whitewater, Vince Foster, the White House Travel Office, Hillary's health plan, Hillary's personality, Hillary's role in the administration, his infidelity, then he was impeached for his infidelity, he was implicated in cocaine smuggling, and he was made fun of for 8 years. Through all of this many of us on the left, myself included, responded with prove it and pointed to the record of his administration, the strong economy, peace, and good foreign relations. We loudly protested that these ad hominem attacks were the unjustified whinings of the party that lost the white house and that they cheapened political discourse.

Now that the Democrats are out of the White House and the Republicans are in, the left is more than happy to engage in the self-same type of ad hominem attacks on the president, constantly second guessing his actions, subscribing to whatever Bush/Rove conspiracy theory is in the media cylce at the moment, and making fun of him for seeming dumb (see below). If we were to apply the same standard to Bush that we wanted applied to Clinton, we might come the conclusion that he isn't that bad of a president after all. There have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil - the DC bureaucracy should take most of the blame for 9/11 imho - the economy has had its best year since 2000. The argument that the recovery is jobless is a spurious one, since every recovery since the evolution of the modern economy begins as a jobless recovery as the economy becomes more efficient and in its second stage adds new jobs to replace the cast off inefficiencies. In terms of civil liberties Bush is actually doing better than two lionized wartime presidents, Lincoln and FDR, as he has not suspended habeas corpus , the freedom of the press, nor has he interned an entire ethnic group. The fact that so many people complain so openly about the lack of civil liberties and the Bush Administration's disregard for them is a testament to the fact that we still have civil liberties. If we didn't have civil liberties wouldn't Bill Maher be in jail by now?

On the balance the country is doing pretty well. The systemic problems within intelligence and law enforcement that allowed so much information about terrorism to slip through the cracks seem to have been rectified. The economy has recovered from the tech bubble and is heading back towards positive job growth. Based on that I might well vote for Bush.

I might not vote for Bush because I disagree with his social policies, particularly as it regards the intersection of religion and civil society. I am largely pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and oppose national standards in education that are tied to school funding. I also don't like the fact that Bush used WMD as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq, when human rights and regional stability would have been just as good. I also don't like the GOP's close ties to the House of Saud.

Why it Bothers Me When People Make fun of Bush's Intelligence

The most frequent ad hominem attack on Bush is that he is dumb, that is the cheapest and easiest attack to make in the abscense of any convincing arguments regarding his policy.

My wife teaches high school and in her Masters degree program she studies special ed and learning disabilities. What she explained to me about Bush is that he probably has a speech/read pattern disorder that makes it hard for him to read aloud. Symptoms include: stumbling over words, confusing words' meanings, homonym confusion, nervousness, and a difficulty extemporizing especially once the individual is nervous or has noticed their spoken mistakes.

He is a very cogent writer, probably because he is not nervous as he writes and because he can go back over his writing (This applies to hand-written material and material written before he had speeech writers). If you watch him speak he often tries to go back over what he has said, a sort of verbal revision. Basically if someone is making fun of him for his dumbness then they are making fun of anybody with a learning disability and only adding the the stigma attached to them. As a liberal (lots of qualifications to the term hence the quotes) I find it objectionable that other liberals would make fun of someone for their probable learning disability when so much of modern liberalism is based on accepting disabilities, reducing stigmas, and personal acceptance. I find anybody that calls themself a liberal and still makes fun of someone for a disability over which he has no control, and is probably ashamed of, a hypocrite and it only adds to my ambivalence towards so many so called liberals, hence me feeling conflicted about the presidential race.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Why it Bothers Me When People Make fun of Bush's Intelligence

The most frequent ad hominem attack on Bush is that he is dumb, that is the cheapest and easiest attack to make in the abscense of any convincing arguments regarding his policy.

My wife teaches high school and in her Masters degree program she studies special ed and learning disabilities. What she explained to me about Bush is that he probably has a speech/read pattern disorder that makes it hard for him to read aloud. Symptoms include: stumbling over words, confusing words' meanings, homonym confusion, nervousness, and a difficulty extemporizing especially once the individual is nervous or has noticed their spoken mistakes.
Wrong. I've seen him making stupid mistakes without speeking a single word...

[mcveigh]

Bush is the 3th Antichrist.
The Antichrist was supposed to come around 2000.
Bush came 2000
The Antichrist ruling contains of the following;
First he will come forward as a saviour, then it will all go to hell... by his hands.
Bush was a saviour after 9-11 for the Americans, the Afghans and Iraq.

Now he will show his true nature...

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 06 2004,10:15)]Wrong. I've seen him making stupid mistakes without speeking a single word...
I'm not sure what you mean.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure what you mean.
Haven't you paid attention to the news, since he was elected? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif



Changing subject. I sent a PM to you, because of my alterations to the projectiles, but you didn't answer. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Do you want me to send you the files? If that's the case, e-mail me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 06 2004,12:35)]
Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure what you mean.
Haven't you paid attention to the news, since he was elected? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif



Changing subject. I sent a PM to you, because of my alterations to the projectiles, but you didn't answer. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Do you want me to send you the files? If that's the case, e-mail me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Oh thanks for the PM, for some reason I can't get them at work, I'll have to go home to get it. Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Are you talking about his policy decisions? Criticizing his policies or the rationale for them is one thing, which I am all for, but calling him stupid is another thing. You can say that a policy is dumb based on its outcome, or probable outcome, without saying that the person making that policy is stupid. The only way that he might come across as justifiably being called stupid is if he made a policy without a reason, i.e. I'm going to bomb Peru and just see what happens, or you can call into question how evidence is handled, but again that is an attack on the policy and process of policy making not the person himself. What I object to is the statement that as a person he is stupid. As political analysis goes calling someone names doesn't do anything for the debate and that is what liberals, myself included, protested during the Clinton Administration and so I feel that it is slightly hypocritical to use the same tactic against a Republican president.

For the most part his policy has worked: the economy is better and the government is working together and there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil. I really don't like what he did with the WMD argument in Iraq. I feel like the invasion was justified on purely humanitarian grounds and also on the grounds that it finished what we had started in 1990.

I would also argue that if we can build internal stability and an effective popular government that that the invasion was justified because access to the Iraqi oil will reduce our dependence on the House of Saud and lessen their regional and international influence. Christopher Hitchens has an excellent article in Vanity Fair on radical Islam in Idonesia in which he touchs on the negative influence of the House of Saud and the organizations that they support.

In terms of the argument that we are safer because there have been no more terrorist attacks the problem is of course that you can also argue that we are safer from dinosaur attacks because no one has been killed by a dinosaur recently. What I would say in defense of the argument is that the public isn't in posession of all the facts. We can safely assume that there are terrorist organizations that are coming after America based on 9/11 and Bin Laden's own statements. We can also assume that they are more likely to attack us now than they were before 9/11 because they have seen the effects of an attack and because we are fighting back - we probably cannot expect passivity from a terrorist organization once we attack it. So it is probable that there are people planning and preparing for attacks against us right now but they haven't successfuly pulled off anything in the US yet. What we don't know is what is being done to stop them or who has been stopped, where they were stopped, or when it all happened because so much of the war on terror is fought via intelligence services and special ops. Unlike a conventional war where you can say, We are beating the Nazis because they have been forced to fall back across the Rhine and it is readily apparent, in an unconventional war if you make a similar statement you could very well give away your methods or contacts. In that sense we, the public, won't really know how the war on terror is going until terror is completely eliminated or a dirty bomb blows up five blocks down from my office. (I work down the street from the White House) So really in the abscense of a final victory or an attack we have to take our government's word for it that we are doing okay in the war on terror - I take that stance because at heart I am an optimist.

There have been terrorist attacks in other places, Saudi Arabia and Turkey among others but in this I am looking at it from a US Administration's point of view: electorally self-interested. The goal of wiping out worldwide terrorism is only a goal insofar as wiping out global terrorism drastically reduces the chances of a terrorist attack on US soil, which the voters would respond to negatively. I have little faith in any politician being so altruistic as to commit his country to a costly course of action that doesn't at the heart largely benefit his own country.

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (mcveigh @ Jan. 06 2004,10:32)]Bush is the 3th Antichrist.
The Antichrist was supposed to come around 2000.
Bush came 2000
The Antichrist ruling contains of the following;
First he will come forward as a saviour, then it will all go to hell... by his hands.
Bush was a saviour after 9-11 for the Americans, the Afghans and Iraq.

Now he will show his true nature...
..................... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif



*points and laughs histerically*

[Mega Dux Bob]

How about as a reason not vote for Bush is that in practice he is a liberal.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Jan. 06 2004,15:52)]How about as a reason not vote for Bush is that in practice he is a liberal.
Good catch:
There have been a couple of articles recently, Sunday NYTimes was the one that I read in detail, about the GOP's frustration with Bush. Most prominently disliked are his increase in spending programs and federal government size, also his increase in bureaucracy. There is also a wing of the GOP that does not like the Patriot Act or the Department of Homeland Security Department. Basically politics are so centrist that nobody can tell if a policy is Republican or Democratic anymore, unless it is polarizing to the extreme.

[Silianat]

Ill Stand by the president




mummble...traitors...mummble

[Guthwyn]

Dhepee-

(/sarcasm on)
I'm sorry; your avatar indicates that you are from the US, but I find that hard to believe, based on your ignorance of US politics. In your posts, I have seen you defend both Presidents Clinton and Bush based on their successful policy decisions, as well as criticize aspects of their administrations. Wrong.
Politics is like football, son, you gotta pick a team and root for it. That's whats so great about single issue politics--there's the right view and the ignorant one. Ben Franklin once said something to the effect of Democracy only works when both sides have respect for one another. Now there's a man that never played football in his life.
Second, if politicians couldn't make fun of the other team (or other nominees from the same team), they would actually have to present constructive ideas and well formed opinions. You ever tried to watch two hours of constructive ideas and well-formed opinions? Two hours of political debate can't stand up to a Jerry Springer marathon.
My advice to you is to pick a strong viewpoint on a single issue, and stick with it. Like that fella in this thread that said Bush is the Anti-christ, and the whole world is goin' to Hell. I like that- that's a viewpoint you can sink your teeth into You're never gonna make first string with your wishy-washy talk about political discourse.
(/sarcasm off)
I find your willingness to present and discuss your views rationally to be refreshing. I feel that political debate in the US has been reduced to a bad joke (literally, and usually about the President's intelligence). I find it disappointing that current and prospective legislators are rarely held accountable for statements or actions for any longer than the media thinks the public will stay tuned.
I'm not a fan of the current administration. I can't say the Democrats are impressing me much, either. I'm tired of sweeping catch phrases and ambiguous unifying themes. Unfortunately, no one can be blamed but an American public that, ultimately, refuses to take an active, informed approach to politics, but would rather passively accept what they are offered.

Guthwyn

[Maedhros]

bush a liberal? I'm perplexed.

I'm a moderate and would compare him and some of his policies to the nazis. Secret arrests, no trials, repealing civil liberties. Elements of any party will always have some complaints about their candidates. Bush is not as far right as some like Pat Robertson.

But the only thing seperating Bush and Robertson politically is the willingness to use a particular Roman marching style publicly. Bush won't, Robertson does.

Bush knows America is not quite ready for it. Robertson knows how to use it to raise the donations he needs to maintain his very unpious lifestyle.

A minority will follow anyone zealously, but the majority will never experience that degree of zeal for anyone.

Kucinich is a liberal. Clark is a moderate. Dean was a moderate in the past and will be again if he makes it past the primary phase.

Bush isn't as right as he can be, but that doesn't make him a liberal. It just means he isn't a facist.

[Papewaio]

Is that a US liberal or a European liberal.

Two different meanings.

Like saying its $40,000 but not saying if it is US dollar or a Euro.

[Aurelian]

Dhepee I'm a fellow leftist. Before you go pushing any Bush-Cheney levers in 2004, let me try to respond to some of your concerns.

First of all, you stated that many liberal American Bush bashers are hypocrites for going after President Bush in the same way the Republicans went after Clinton. If only we could Clinton's entire personal life from his anti-Vietnam war protesting, to his financial dealings, to his sex life were endlessly investigated by special commissions with huge budgets and legions of investigative reporters. There wasn't a comedy routine in the country that didn't make fun of Clinton, and endless hours of right wing radio was devoted to personal attacks on the president and his family. And of course, as you know, none of it was related to policy issues or his duties as president of the United States.

On the other hand, Bush has a past that includes DUI arrests, possible cocaine use, the likelihood that he went AWOL from the National Guard (and used his father's influence to get him in), questionable financial dealings while at Harken Oil, admitted alcohol addiction, political alliances with Ken Lay, the Florida election scandal, etc. etc. etc.

Yet even with all these juicy stories out there just waiting to be explored, how often do you hear any of these issues discussed in the mainstream press? How many special commissions are investigating Bush's financial dealings or sordid past? That's right - none. He has gotten an almost complete pass from the professional pundits on every issue related to his character, his life choices, and for the most part his policies.

Clinton was under attack from day one. No honeymoon period for him. It was nothing but spin and personal attacks from the RNC from the beginning to the end of his presidency. Bush has had an incredibly easy time of it while undertaking policies that should be far more controversial and debated than they are. Should those of us on the left just continue to roll over, let the Republicans define the terms of debate, and continue to play nice while Democratic candidates are put through the meat grinder year after year? Hardly. The stakes are too high for that.

As for your conclusion that Bush isn't that bad of a president after all... Egads.

I could go on forever on that score, but I'll just confine myself to the examples that you gave.

There have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil - the DC bureaucracy should take most of the blame for 9/11 imho

If the bureaucracy deserves the blame for 9/11, then maybe they deserve the credit for there not having been any new attacks... Of course, the buck IS supposed to stop on the president's desk. There is growing information concerning the run up to 9/11 that indicates that the administration deserves its fair share of blame for failing to act on substantial warnings that it received. The fact that the administration spent so much energy stonewalling investigations into 9/11 indicates that they would probably rather not have the full scope of their prior knowledge made public.

- the economy has had its best year since 2000. The argument that the recovery is jobless is a spurious one, since every recovery since the evolution of the modern economy begins as a jobless recovery as the economy becomes more efficient and in its second stage adds new jobs to replace the cast off inefficiencies.

Well, we've had a quarter of very strong growth, but we've also had a massive Keynesian infusion of government spending and tax cuts. Discretionary spending is up 25%, and we've spent billions feeding the military-industrial complex. The real economic danger of Bush's policies is of course the massive fiscal deficit, the declining dollar, and the likelihood that we're going to have to have significant interest rate increases to attract all the foreign money we're going to need to pay for our fiscal and trade deficits. Big interest rate jumps could easily choke off any recovery that is under way.

Remember, Bush is far worse than a tax and spend liberal... he is a borrow and spend conservative. That means higher interest rates, and bigger debt service payments for you and your children.

In terms of civil liberties Bush is actually doing better than two lionized wartime presidents, Lincoln and FDR, as he has not suspended habeas corpus , the freedom of the press, nor has he interned an entire ethnic group. The fact that so many people complain so openly about the lack of civil liberties and the Bush Administration's disregard for them is a testament to the fact that we still have civil liberties. If we didn't have civil liberties wouldn't Bill Maher be in jail by now?

First of all, when Lincoln and FDR were in office we were actually at war. Now we are not. War is something Congress declares. Instead, we are in an Orwellian state of perpetual emergency - with color coding to tell us all how scared we should be. While Bush has not officially suspended habeus corpus he has done it de facto. The president can now declare anyone he wants as an enemy combatant and put him in a gulag without counsel, without informing his family, and without pressing charges of any kind. Welcome to 1984. The FBI, true to past form, are spending their time infiltrating and investigating anti-war and anti-globalization marchers. Yay, I feel so much safer now.

As for the freedom of the press and Bill Maher's legal status, I think it is pretty sad that our standard for determining if we still have free speech is whether or not those who use it are in jail. In fact, I don't know if you realize this, but when the president gives a speech somewhere, the Secret Service now creates a free speech zone a mile or so away from the president's route for those people who would wish to hold up a protest sign or verbally express their displeasure. Supporters are free to be seen and heard by the president and press, but protesters are quickly bundled off by the cops if they attempt to use their right of 'free speech' outside of their safely cordoned-off area. Hell, since the president recently admitted that he doesn't watch the news or read newspapers he probably thinks he's the most popular president in U.S. history.

Anyway, with the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy, lying, undermining civil liberties, undermining our alliance structures, etc. you've got to come to the conclusion that we can do better as a nation without four more years of Bush/Cheney.

Don't push that lever http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I wasn't going to lose precious time discussing American politics or foreign affairs, but the delusional replies of some Americans, forces me to do so.

I'm not going to answer directly to most questions, because I would be writing all day long and frankly I don't have the time or pacience to loose on such things.

I'll just post some tips that will help you understand why some Americans have, in most foreigners opinion, a delusional perception of reality.

These reasons don't explain why you think everyone in the world is against you, because some of your oppositors are lunatics or fundamentalists (which ends up being the same).

It will, however, allow you to grasp American foreign policy arrogance.



Relating to Bush:

Aurelian has already answered better than I could, explaining the several reasons, relating to American internal affairs, that lead to Bush's ill reputation.

Relating to foreign affairs, Bush's administration is severelly lacking if compared with Clinton's.

No neutral position whatsoever in the Middle East problem. Blatantly closing their eyes to Sharon's tiranic and invasive rule over the Palestinians. And all of this before 9/11.

Forcing an invasion of a sovereign country (no matter who rules it), without UN sanctioning or consent, because of mere suspitions who were unconfirmed several times by UN inspectors, is a painfull reminder of arrogant and tiranical international bullying. Specially now. 9 months after the invasion and not a single chemical weapon found

Talk about loosing face http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

And to add insult to injury, the lack of a reconstruction policy prior to the invasion, or the blatant sale of resources exploration rights to American companies.

One fact I must still add:
However horrible and regretable it was, 9/11 was, in fact, an oxygen tank for the drowning Bush administration. It allowed them to make the American press and TV look the other way, from the internal economical problems, focusing on an international Crusade against terrorism. It was also a blessing for all the lobbyists behind the administration, allowing them to increase their sales of military equipment to the American Armed Forces.

And dont you dare say I'm biased or an insensitive person. 30% of the WTC casualties were foreign citizens, including some from my own country.

Just to end my remark:

-The fact that he wasn't really elected by the American people, but by cunning political manouvering.

In fact, if I was American, I would prefer 1,000,000 times more Bill Clinton, with all his personal flaws, than a industry lobbyist's puppet like Bush.



Relating to the American concept of Democracy:

My friends, you do not live in a Democracy
The only nation ever to live in one, was the Athenian city-state.
You, like every democratic country in the world today, live in a Republic. A Democracy is a govermement system where EVERY citizen votes EVERY law proposed. Today's democracies are more similar to the Roman Republic than to the Athenian Democracy. The people vote for government officials, that will later make the decisions within the government and without public interference.

And another thing I have to add:

-The liberalness of a political system is directly proportional to the number of political parties allowed to be involved. So, the greater the number of political parties the better the public is represented.

What we see in the USA, is a system with 2 political parties. In fact:

-Democratic party: Conservative Right-Wing
-Republican party: Ultra Conservative Extreme Right-Wing

Talk about variety and freedom of choise... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Worse than this, only Comunist (1 party) and Dictatorship (no parties) regimes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif



Relating to the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:


Quote[/b] ]Facts facts facts not this whiney new age rewrite WWII history that I am sick and tired of hearing.

Some people need to read more then just about the European theater of conflict and add African, South East Asia, Atlantic and Pacific to the list.

People complain about the bomb. They only complain because they have no concept of why the bomb was dropped.
Preciselly. You have no concept of why the bomb was dropped.

The main reason behind Truman's decision to launch the bombs wasn't, as you said, the sparing of GI's and civilian lives. It was the fact that Eisenhower and Bradley warned him that Russian Armed Forces would expel American Armed Forces from Western Europe in less than 3 weeks. He needed a restraining policy against Stalin's confidence. In fact an intimidation manouver.




Quote[/b] ]Japan needed to be stopped. It needed to be changed. It at all times had the option of total surrender and it choose to let its people be bombed not just once but twice to end a war of brutality and imperialism that they started.
And you think it was for altruistic reasons they defeated and invaded Japan??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Yes, of course. Out of the kindness for strangers concept. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

It was for geostrategical importance. Anti-Soviet expansion, OK?

You are sooooo deluded http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Sun Tzui]

I'm not going to quote the whole of Lord Aymar's last post, however I did not want to lose the oportunity of posting my opinion, and quite frankly Aymar's post says it all, so I would like to point that I fully subscribe to his words. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Keep up the good work Aymar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Keep up the good work Aymar
Sometimes it's hard to accept, but the truth must be told. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ Jan. 07 2004,01:56)]Dhepee I'm a fellow leftist. Before you go pushing any Bush-Cheney levers in 2004, let me try to respond to some of your concerns.
I wouldn't worry about me pushing a GOP lever in 2004. Then again I might not pull any levers. I feel like there is too much personality politics and not enough policy politics. The degree to which personal attacks and conspiracy theories dictate public opinion, and are used to influence it, I feel like I should take anything with a grain of salt. That said the Valerie Plame issue might just transcend personality politics and turn into a real stinker for Bush. If Bush had anything to do with it, or knowledge of it, I hope they impeach him so fast that his head spins. So no I won't vote for Bush, I am just hoping, vainly, that politics will be more about policy and less about demagoguery.

Really you aren't voting for a president so much as his corporate sponsors. Which do you prefer: Halliburton and Enron or whoever is in bed with Dean, probably ADM and Eli Lilly?

The Bush v. Dean that is probable for 2004, unless Clark can light a fire that we haven't seen yet, will be interesting. Although Dean plays himself as the man of the people, he is actually from a wealthy family too. On a side note it was Dean's father who ordered George Plimpton expelled from their exclusive Hamptons tennis club after Plimpton brought Mohammed Ali as a guest in the late 1960's. Since Bush and Dean come from such similar backgrounds and have many of the same interests behind both of them a lot of issues probably won't come up, or if they do come up won't be acted on after the election. Yes, the distance is going to continue to grow between rich and poor and the middle class will continue to be on the ass end of that equation, neither Bush or Dean will address that in their administrations (I'll bet anybody five bucks that they won't, come see me in 2008).

If anything a Bush-Dean contest would prove what Bill Hicks said - On the left hand is the democratic puppet and on the right is the republican puppet. Oh no the same guy is holding both puppets. We're f*cked. I would vote for Bill Hicks but he is dead, damned pancreatic cancer.

I would like to vote for somebody like RFK, there was a man with principles despite his human flaws. Actually that is the problem with personality politics, they don't recognize that humans are inherently flawed beings. Personality politics force us to vote for the person not the policies - based on that rationale we should all vote for my grandmother she's really sweet, says that it's important to be nice to everybody, has been an upstanding Methodist for the last 80 years, and bakes really good pies. The downside is I have no idea where she stands on school vouchers, the rebuilding of Iraq, the war on terrorism, the separation of church and state or taxation.

RFK cheated on his wife in a way that makes Clinton look like the Pope, he was a heavy drinker at times and his family got rich through shady avenues, but he fought organized crime like a tiger, supported Civil Rights, supported an equitable education and tax system designed to level the playing field, and wanted the US out of Vietnam. Based on his personality he might not make it out of the primaries today but based on his policies he might well have been the best president since Lincoln.

[NewJeffCT]

Wow, great post Aurelian,

A few things to add – you forget that right winger Richard Mellon Scaife funded a lot of the attacks on Clinton and that a lot of the media in the US is owned by far righties like Rupert Murdoch of Fox and Conrad Black of the Tribune Company. Other than bad sexual judgment (I had a passing acquaintance with a woman that was an intern in the WH at the same time as Lewinsky and this woman was 10 times better looking) – nothing was proven against Clinton – they did not trash the White House when leaving; all FIVE investigations into Vince Foster’s death came to the same conclusion – no wrongdoing; the Chinese got most of their nuclear secrets during the Iran Contra years of Reagan; Whitewater was an expensive fiasco and waste of time that proved nothing; etc, etc.

I also believe Bush was arrested on two other occasions, and technically, Bush did not is not AWOL. Once you are past a certain time limit, it is considered desertion. And Bush’s VP Dick Cheney has now admitted to two DUI incidents from the 1960s. Perhaps he was drunk thinking about going to Vietnam? Ooops, Cheney avoided war as well because he “had other priorities.” Oh well, I think everybody in the Bush Administration (save Rumsfeld in Korea) avoided serving in Vietnam. So, now you can desert the military, get arrested 3 times, abuse drugs & alcohol and still become President of the United States. What will we tell our children if they ask us about drugs? Don’t do drugs or you could grow up to be President? I also forget, I believe Bush paid for an abortion for an old girlfriend of his before he got married– I guess he is only against abortion for those that cannot afford it?

Also, do not forget that when Bush took office, his top defense priority was Star Wars. Condi Rice and others said that the Clinton administration was too obsessed with bin Laden and terrorism. The special forces that were ready to roll in Afghanistan were called back, the missile frigates off the coast were sent home and we gave the Taliban a huge cash payment for fighting drugs. And the Hart Rudman report that was completed in January of 2001 that warned of a bin Laden led major terror attack in the US sat on a desk and was never looked at at all until after 9/11. Ooops. And, let us just ignore the fact that REPUBLICAN Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, said that 9/11 was preventable recently. And, speaking of the 9/11 commission, why is the Bush Administration stonewalling the investigation into 9/11? Why will they not tell the commission what was in the August 6, 2001 security briefing? Why did soon after that briefing, top administration officials no longer fly commercial aircraft? Why were the bin Ladens the only people allowed to fly around America in the few days after 9/11?

You are also correct about our economic problems. Bush bought himself a temporary bump in the economy for political purposes while raising our long term debt and killing the dollar. But, his fiscal responsibility does include cutting veterans benefits, cutting combat pay for soldiers and cutting health benefits for reservists...

To the person that said it is not trillions, IT IS. Just for this one year, we are experiencing a $400 billion shortfall with 2004 projected to be even higher. However, those are just one year totals that add to the total national debt, which is $4 or $5 trillion or so.

Sorry, I could go on all day…

[Bezalel]

This is why I stopped caring about politics. All people do is bash each other then counter-bash. It's a system of hate that is usually more disruptive than the actual issue they're smashing each other over. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this post, none is meant.

[Morcini]

BUSH IS A GREAT PRESIDENT
I CANNOT STAND ALL OF THE UN-PATRIOTIC PEOPLE OUT THERE. WE GO TO WAR FOR THE SAKE OF OUR SECURITY, AND ALL YOU BRATS CAN DO IS WHINE ABOUT IT.(I'm not pointing any fingers...no offense)
But really, the man is doing just fine. And he cannot single-handedly take on the econmy by himself It is our job too to make it work. Bush has my support.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 07 2004,22:04)]Relating to the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:


Quote[/b] ]Facts facts facts not this whiney new age rewrite WWII history that I am sick and tired of hearing.

Some people need to read more then just about the European theater of conflict and add African, South East Asia, Atlantic and Pacific to the list.

People complain about the bomb. They only complain because they have no concept of why the bomb was dropped.
Preciselly. You have no concept of why the bomb was dropped.

The main reason behind Truman's decision to launch the bombs wasn't, as you said, the sparing of GI's and civilian lives. It was the fact that Eisenhower and Bradley warned him that Russian Armed Forces would expel American Armed Forces from Western Europe in less than 3 weeks. He needed a restraining policy against Stalin's confidence. In fact an intimidation manouver.




Quote[/b] ]Japan needed to be stopped. It needed to be changed. It at all times had the option of total surrender and it choose to let its people be bombed not just once but twice to end a war of brutality and imperialism that they started.
And you think it was for altruistic reasons they defeated and invaded Japan??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Yes, of course. Out of the kindness for strangers concept. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

It was for geostrategical importance. Anti-Soviet expansion, OK?

You are sooooo deluded http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri-Sama

I am aware of the Soviet expansion and how dropping the a-bombs on Japan could act as a deterrent.

Does not stop the fact that Japan was either going to be invaded, conventionally bombed or blockaded until it gave up.

You seem to have a very euro-centric view of the world where the only importance is europe and its threats. Japan was made to go totally surrender because of its actions. Soviets where a potential threat to europe. Japan had been a successful threat to South East Asia, the Pacific and America.

One was an actuality the other a potentiality. Japan was until its surrender been the greatest threat in the region. Soviets where on the brink of becoming one for Europe.

Japan was not bombed for no reason at all. The bombs saved many allied lives. Japan was not in a war for no reason at all. Japan did not start the war with America and Britain for no reason. Japan had trade sanctions. Do you know why?

I am not deluded. You seem to think that the Japanese where attacked out of the blue.

To try and get through your euro-bias I will put it into another context.

Do you think the allies should have made Nazi Germany have to commit to total surrendor?
If the atomic bombs had been ready, do you think it would have been justified to drop them on Germany rather then fire bomb and then D-day?
Do you think that seeing an atomic bomb or two land in Germany in 1943 have made them surrendor there and then saving all the potential lives from the D-day invasions and the concentration camps?

[Onerous_Rex]

I just want everyone to ask themselves whether or not you would prefer to take a plane trip to that place you've always dreamed of Post or Pre 9/11?


Or let me put it this way:


..now that Bush has thoroughly bombed the crap out of the Muslim world and declared war on a state-of-mind (terror),

When will you feel as safe to fly as you did with Clinton?

[LestaT]

One thing Bush contribute generously to the american public is greater paranoia. Americans are now more afraid, of what I'm not sure. But with all these new rulings and all.. well.. what happened to the land of the free, and the home of the brave ? I pity my american friends. They live in fear, of bombings, terrorism etc... just like my friends in Afghanistan, Iraq, and once upon a time, Libya.. well... Thank God that i live in a place where i don't have to be afraid of neighbours of people with different skin or religion than me..

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Onerous_Rex]

I am an American, and the only thing that I'm afraid of is another four years with a Bush in the White House.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

To Papewaio:

I will ignore the Euro-bias accusations you've made.
In opposition, I could call you USA-biased, but I won't dig that low...



Quote[/b] ]Does not stop the fact that Japan was either going to be invaded, conventionally bombed or blockaded until it gave up.
True.




Quote[/b] ] Japan was made to go totally surrender because of its actions. Soviets where a potential threat to europe. Japan had been a successful threat to South East Asia, the Pacific and America.
Yes, the reasoning behind the invasion of Japan and Germany, was to deal permanently with their threat.

As for Soviets, they were already an ideological threat for Western European regimes, since 1917.




Quote[/b] ]Japan was not bombed for no reason at all. The bombs saved many allied lives.
True. But at the expense of Japanese civilians.




Quote[/b] ]Japan was not in a war for no reason at all. Japan did not start the war with America and Britain for no reason. Japan had trade sanctions. Do you know why?
Yes, I know the reasons.




Quote[/b] ]You seem to think that the Japanese where attacked out of the blue.
I never said that. What I said is that NO ATTACK WITH AN ATOMIC OR NUCLEAR BOMB IS HUMANLY JUSTIFIABLE.

But you keep failing to understand what I've said... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif




Quote[/b] ]Do you think the allies should have made Nazi Germany have to commit to total surrendor?
Nazi Germany WAS forced to total surrender.





Quote[/b] ]If the atomic bombs had been ready, do you think it would have been justified to drop them on Germany rather then fire bomb and then D-day?
Do you think that seeing an atomic bomb or two land in Germany in 1943 have made them surrendor there and then saving all the potential lives from the D-day invasions and the concentration camps?
Of course it would abreviate the war and many lives would be saved. And if Roosevelt had them, he probably would have used them, but that doesn't change any of what I said:

NO ATTACK WITH AN ATOMIC OR NUCLEAR BOMB IS HUMANLY JUSTIFIABLE, EVER.

An atomic or nuclear weapon is an indiscriminate weapon. Yes, most bombs are. But, due to it's power, that indiscriminate factor means millions of innocent victims, instead of dozens.

The bombing of non-military targets, no matter with what weapon, is NEVER HUMANLY JUSTIFIABLE.

Atomic and nuclear bombs even more so, due to that enormous power.

[Papewaio]

Ok I see your way of thinking Mauri-sama.

I put it this way.

If not taking in other factors we take the basic premise that all people are equal. When people die they die. The method of killing is no where as important as the results.

Which would be the lesser of two evils to kill 10,000 to save 100,000 or kill 100,000 to save 100,000?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Which would be the lesser of two evils to kill 10,000 to save 100,000 or kill 100,000 to save 100,000?
You know the answer to that... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think we've been at each others throat, more by a question of interpretation, than diference of opinion.

If I was in Truman's place, beeing the person that I am today, I would be in a lot of trouble.

Eventually my decision, concerning the geostrategical and political balance, wouldn't really be that different from him.

However, and I'm pretty certain on this, because of my own moral issues, I think that a quiet sleep wouldn't be possible until the end of my days... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Silianat]

yes know..9/11 is Clinton's fault because he pulled out intellingence and spies out of the middle east, then bush gets elected and is tring to fix it when 9/11 came along and everyone KNOWS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif what a great loss that was http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif and now bush is trying to make a stable middle east and help neighbors in need and all you're looking at is what about me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Silianat]

yes know..9/11 is Clinton's fault because he pulled out intellingence and spies out of the middle east, then bush gets elected and is tring to fix it when 9/11 came along and everyone KNOWS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif what a great loss that was http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif and now bush is trying to make a stable middle east and help neighbors in need and all you're looking at is what about me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Silianat]

CRAP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif ......pushed the button too many times

[MadMad]

From a civilian point of view:

Since the 'Bush' administration the national deficit has not been improved nor the employment rates or interest rates or economy as a whole.
However, he is inexperienced compared to the past presidents when it comes to dealing with International issues.

From a non-civilian point of view:

He has carried on what his father tried to do while he was in office. He made Iraq a safer place to live for its citizens, however the Secretary of State failed to see the end result. What could happen after the war.
The number soldiers in Iraq currently can not cope due to the radical approach to the war Mr. Secretary of State pushed toward.
As a Commander In Chief. Mr President (Bush) should have consulted with more advisors. But who knew things would turn out this way.

Bottom Line:

Bush will be re-elected if he keeps the American people convinced that what he did in Iraq was for the 'Freedom' of the Iraqi and not for what the country has in abundance in natural resources.

Bush will fail if does not improve things in our own back garden.

Just my 2 drunken cents...

[Lord of the morning]

So if the patrons of totalwar.org got to decide, Bush would not stay. Strange that, totalwar.org could be his homepage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif, and just as we do, he likes wargames.


Seriously though, Bush is to unilateralist (if that is the correct English spelling) nationalistic, protectionist for my tastes. America is the most powerful nation in the world, but that does not mean that America alone is stronger than an America that cooperates with other nations, an America that works within the international community and not beside or against it.


(Disclaimer: no part of this post should be seen as an attack against America or Americans, it is merely a critique of the American Foreign policy which has been the predominant for some years now)


Today’s America is focused on security rather than safety. Everything is double checked, there are red and orange alert levels, there is a special national security department, and so on. The reasoning behind all of this is the same as that behind capital punishment. kinda like the American saying My way or the hiway, Bush thinks that he can do anything to anyone, and no one will do anything to him, because if anyone does anything to him, that person dies. The people of America, in spite of all security mesures do not feel safe, the gevernment doesnt want them to, this fear, this fear of terrorists, rouge states, Usama bin ladin, this fear of anything the greates army in the eorld cannot meet on the battlefield in a #normal battle, this fear is the basis of the Bush regime. Without this fear, there would have been alot more debate as over how Bush won the last election, and connected to that, his credability. Without this fear, Bush would never be reelected. This fear is created and maintained by the government. It was the government who trained and financed Usama, it was the government who gave Saddam his weapons... The traditional American foreing policy is the cause for a very large part of all unrest and terrorists in the world and it is beginning to strike back harder than before.

America invaded Iraq on false accusations of possession of chemical and/or biological weapons (weapons that were given to Iraq by the US). Now, the greatest threat to peace and safety in the middle east, the cause for the 11/9 attacks is Israel, they have nukes and possibly chemical weapons, but this threat is not countered by the Us, infact they are the ones providing Israel with guns and resources to occupy Palestinian territory and commit all sorts of atrocities.

Well, im rather tired now so this post may not be perfectly formated. Ill just sleep now.

[Pruneau]

Quote[/b] ]Japan needed to be stopped. It needed to be changed. It at all times had the option of total surrender and it choose [sic] to let its people be bombed not just once but twice to end a war of brutality and imperialism that they started.

Ironically enough that is the opinion of a lot of fanatical muslims about the U.S. I still distinctly remember (with a lot of negativity) how palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9/11.

I have quite a few good friends in the U.S., that come over whenever they have the chance, and vice-versa. They sound a lot like OBG. They know things are not going well with their country, and they recognize that it will be very difficult to turn the tide. The U.S. are becoming a vehicle for the neoconservative hawks' plans, the population is expendable, and Bush is the sock puppet, and I am truly very worried that a change of president is not gonna change a damn thing at all at this stage. We are too far gone.

Not that we in Europe should be saying a lot. The European Union government is a corrupt shambles, a money laundry, money can buy anything including immunity from the law, and no person with even a shred of honesty has a chance of making it into any political decision making position.

I'm not gonna say any more before I get all upset again :)

[Papewaio]

There is a subtle difference between WWII and TWOT.

Simply put in WWII there was some sort of ability to talk, to make treaties (not that some people acknowledged them) and otherwise have a dialogue of intent and expectations.

TWOT on the other hand there is no negotiation, there is no clear way out, there is no party to clearly see as the leader to even bring a truce to. The absence of a clear agenda and a clear communication channel means the TWOT will go on and on.

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

Well I'm not sure...I am American, and as for America itself I cannot say the Bush has done any worse than anyother president who could have taken his place...Internationally? Well, I can't say that losing Saddam was a bad thing...a very difficult topic for sure...

I will say that if given a better alternative to Bush I would vote for him or her. But after watching the Democrat candidates debate, I cannot be convinced...Politics are in a sad state, I really do hate the party system, and will probably just vote Libretarian...even though they, of course have no hope...

For me personally...local elections are more important anyway.

[Contra]

Let me just ask every pro-Bush - what would he be without 9/11?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[Chimpyang]

All this tlak on re-electing Bush... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif what abuot Blair? Elections are als ocoming up in the not TOO distant future..would we re-elcet him and the labour party?

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

I think he would just be an average president, like his father...really the economy is not really the fault of the president...you really can't blame Bush for the fall of the economy the same way you can't blame Clinton for 9/11. Something like that was inevitable, and the result of a lot of factors.

The poor economy, which seems to be the democrats main point to attack Bush in the upcoming elections, was also an inevitability...no one man could have caused the fall of the stock market crash. I mean the entire economy was way over inflated anyway, all those dotcoms, we don't produce anything in America so really it is no one president's fault...the same as a good economy is no one president's accomplishment.

Like I said about not producing...living in a State hit pretty hard by the poor economy (internet stock crashing...Boeing layoffs...) we are just now hoping and praying to get more jobs in state, mainly through Boeing of course.

And none of the democratic candidates have convinced me that they are really any different than Bush. They just say the same things different ways.

[Dillinger]

I like Bush, more in personality (That no-bull attitude, even if it is fake, I think America needs.) than actual politics. However, his administration could also be better. *Cough*Rummy*Cough*

I dunno, I do love his confidence in his military and his country, though.

[Maedhros]

I think it is called bravado, not confidence.

I could be wrong, but I believe it was the bush admin that pulled the satelite off bin Laden.

They didn't consider him a threat.

As for Blair, perhaps Britain would be willing to trade?

Ease our pain with somebody who is, and qualified to lead. We'll give you bravado at the cost of ignorance.

We'll give him back after our budget is balanced, and the 5 trillion in debt is paid off. Thus allowing a a tax cut of about 3 trillion over ten years.

Otherwise my generation will either be saddled with the the ugly choice of cutting our greedy parents off from their social security or paying the highest taxes with fewest services in history.

[SPQR Panzer-Jager]

Bush is a great, strong and courageous man. He wont bow to the rest of the world, which is wat america needs these days. He is definately the right man to lead the country in these troubled times. Bush bashers need to get their facts straight and realize america has to take a strong hand in the world.

[Maedhros]

he who stands alone dies alone

their are five attributes of leadership according a wise and ancient chinese author:
Knowledge, trustworthiness, humaneness, valor, and strictness

I'll grant bush has strictness.

he prides himself on how little he knows.
He also prides himself on secretiveness and works hard to undermine documents like the bill of rights. Documents this country is founded on.

His lack of compassion, or awareness of his whole environment, his inability to care for others is a vice, not a virtue.

He uses this undeclared war as justification for ulterior motives and an agenda that would frighten the great majority during any other time. He has not fought or served to defend this country. His father pulled strings to get him an assignment where he would be safely out of harms way. An assignment he failed to complete.
Now he is using the lives and service of real Americans as political fodder for his own agenda.

I'll give him strictness

just don't call me ungenerous

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are some of you saying that the US acted alone.I do not call a coalition of 69 countries unilateralisism .As for attacking under false pretenses clinton said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and so did the english.In fact he has used them on his own people and others.Just because you cannot find them dose not mean they were no there.As for the economy it lags behind the administration and the reccesion started under Clinton .Can anyone truthfuly say the world and Iraq are not better off without Saddam?The only coutries that were against it were those who were making money of saddam.The main reason Busg is not leading in this poll is we have a lot of college students and kids playing this game who unfourtunaley have no idea of what the real world is like and are trapped in a liberal enviorment.And this stuff about the deficit really makes mr laff.All of a sudden its the democrats who want a balanced budget what a joke.Clinton vetoed the balanced budget 2 or 3 times before it was forced down his throat by the republican congress.The only thing wrong with Bush is he gives in to the democrats 2 much.Also blaming 911 on Israel come on.Imagine if the arab states had the power and weapons they had,do you think they would hesitate to use them on Israel,I cannot believe the restraint Isreal has shown and thats probably nostly because we puyt pressure on them and do not tell me the palastianns are being persecute no one in history has been as persecuted as the jews,and b
no im not jewish.this stuff really steams me up.There never was a palastinian state in fact jordan is there real home but even the arabs do not want them.How come millions of arabs can live in Israel but no jews are supposed to live on the west bank.I gota stop before I blow my top.

[Phatose]

I won't vote for him. The economy is neither his fault nor Clinton's, and rests solely on the shoulders of questionable economic practices by corporations. I don't think he has a viable plan to bring us out of the hole we're in though. I do think the medicare reforms that were passed under his watch are simply going to kill people, it's that bad. $10 co-pay for dialysis.....that adds up quickly, and it's not like people on medicare have extra money sitting around. And with the insurance industry up the proverbial creek after the stock market bubble burst, private insurance is just as bad.

I think his faith based initiatives are a bad sign, and I'd rather have him out of office before he managed to do any major damage to the church-state seperation. I think the war on terrorism is kind of a twisted joke - all that war, and I feel precisely no safer from foreign terrorists (who, in all honesty, didn't scare me that much to begin with), and a lot more threatened by my own government. The promise of a renewed space program is certainly a good idea in my book, but it's nowhere near enough to swing me over.

Ultimately, I think the world is rapidly changing, and Bush in a conservative, more about attempting to roll back the clock then about trying to evolve rapidly enough that we won't become obsolete. The man has a vision, I'm sure...but it's not a vision I want to be a part of.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh and I would also like to ponyt out that another reason Bush is trailing in this poll is a lot of people who are not from america are voting.I hate to burst all your bubbles but the next election is gonna be a lanslide and Bush will win.Oh by the way im not a republican either im a Liberataian,the republicans are way to far left for my thinking big goverment big spending Gah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

[Sjakihata]

Yeah, I guess republicans are almost commies?

So softcore lefty-pinkie kinda of gov in US atm..


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

[Dillinger]

At least the man is sure where he stands, and is not intimidated by would-be powers.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

SPQR Panzer-Jager wrote:


Quote[/b] ]Bush is a great, strong and courageous man. He wont bow to the rest of the world, which is wat america needs these days. He is definately the right man to lead the country in these troubled times. Bush bashers need to get their facts straight and realize america has to take a strong hand in the world.
Strong hand on the world??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

Who do you think you are? GOD? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

You think you are better than anyone else? You believe you have the moral and right to rule above anyone else? You believe you have the right to impose? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif


Judging by your words, there are only 4 choises to understand who you are:

1) You're a CHILD
2) You're a FASCIST http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
3) You're EXTREMELLY DUMB http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-uhoh.gif
4) You're DUMB as a doornail http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

The problem with your attitude is that, all the other Americans who happen to be wise and sensible persons, get tagged as if as they were you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

If we took your views as those of ALL Americans, one doesn't need to wonder why lots of people in the world today hate Americans. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Papewaio]

Mauri-san remove any insultive words or insinuations. Argue the statement not the person.

A few things to point out:
a) He might be sarcastic or ironic then it is yourself wearing the insults.
b) If you perceive someone is ignorant the method to resolve that is knowledge not abuse.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes Mauri you lost your argument rght with the get go.Because a man dose not agree with you dose not give you the right to call him names.Also alot of americans agree with his statements.Bush is the right president at the right time and I am glad we have him.You may disagree with me but stick to the facts and please refrain from the personal attacks.

[spud_gun]

With regards to the sepreration of church and state - The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say church and state have to be kept seperate, in fact all it does do is protect religion(s) from the the goverment.

[Phatose]

And in so doing, creates a neccessary church/state boundary, rather directly implied as a neccesity by the establishment clause. It is impossible to protect all religions from the state without protecting the state from religion.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Papewaio-sama:


Quote[/b] ]a) He might be sarcastic or ironic then it is yourself wearing the insults.
He wasn't beeing sarcastic. Otherwise, I would never have made fun of him.



Quote[/b] ]b) If you perceive someone is ignorant the method to resolve that is knowledge not abuse.
Agreed, but arrogance and ignorance together, make me loose my senses.



To Sir Gawain of Orkeny:


Quote[/b] ]Yes Mauri you lost your argument rght with the get go.
No, I did not. I didn't start anything. An insult has he made it, cannot be ignored. According to his perspective, everyone else in the world should be a slave to the Americans. I resent that.



Quote[/b] ]Because a man dose not agree with you dose not give you the right to call him names.
Everyone calls names to HITLER.



Quote[/b] ]Also alot of americans agree with his statements.
That's their problem. Or should I say it's the rest of the world's fear?



Quote[/b] ]Bush is the right president at the right time and I am glad we have him.
In fact, most other American Presidents would do a better job, except for Reagan and LJ.

[Pruneau]

Now if we just launch every single nuclear warhead rocket out there at once, all life on earth will be gone, and there will never be war again.

Now how's that for a peacemaker.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote eveyone calls hitler names.Thats not cause they do not agree with him on eveything but because he was a mass murderer. By the way i know i will catch flak on this but hitler did do some good things also. Another most amrican presidents would do a better job except Regan.Yeah like Carter would of done better,give me a break.Regan was americas greatest president of the 20th century of course this is just my and many other americans opinion again.It seems pretty obvious that you do not like the united states or its policies that is your opinion but has nothing to do with facts.
Now on to another subject.The first amendment is supposed to give freedom of religion not freedom from it.The founding fathers were very religious people.IF you take religion out of our goverment we have no government.Remember that little thing that we are endowed with by our creator with inailiable rights.I believe that means by god.We do not get them from the government.Our system of government and laws is based on Judeau and christian ethics.You cannot ingnore these facts.Have any of you seen Gods and Generals.Look at all the references to god there.Read some of Linclons speeches he is always asking for gods help and so were all the presidents before him.I am really sick of all this politacly correct BS.Read your constition and bill of rights,The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves seeing how far we have strayed from the things they intended.When we lose god in america it is the begging of the end of us for without god we lose all our rights since he is the one who gave them to us.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Thats not cause they do not agree with him on eveything but because he was a mass murderer.
Ok, point taken. I'll refrain my comments.



Quote[/b] ]By the way i know i will catch flak on this but hitler did do some good things also.
Not from me. He rebuild German economics, although based on the production of weaponery.



Quote[/b] ]Another most amrican presidents would do a better job except Regan.Yeah like Carter would of done better,give me a break.
Ok, nor Carter. He is too peacefull. A bit like the English Prime-Minister Chamberlain before WW2.



Quote[/b] ]Regan was americas greatest president of the 20th century of course this is just my and many other americans opinion again.
ROTFL Surelly, you got to be joking http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

In reality, he was just like GWB, an actor beeing puppetered by the lobbyists.




Quote[/b] ]It seems pretty obvious that you do not like the united states or its policies that is your opinion but has nothing to do with facts.
What a presumptuous assumption http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

I have nothing against the USA, or its inhabitants.

My problem is with the Bin Ladens of this world. That is:

FUNDAMENTALISTS, whatever they defend. Beeing them, guys like Osama Bin Laden or American White Supremacists, makes little difference. They ALL promote HATE. And that can't be tolerated.

Therefore, my problem is with American Foreign Policy too. Don't you see that extremist foreign policies is against ALL you Americans are proud of?

You make it like you have no problem acting as agressors with no apparent reason. That was what SPQR Panzer-Jager was saying. Something like:

We don't give a f**k of what you think We go there and crush some skulls

It's not my opinion. It's FACTS. Have you read my previous posts? Aparently you didn't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So it looks like you agree with most of what I said.I never said you didnt like americans just their gvernment and its policies.I also cannot stand anyone who promotes hate for any reason.As far as Panzers comment i think he may have gotten a bit carried away It was a poor choice of words but america has to take of its own saftey first.As foe Reagan no i am not kidding.He caused the collapse of the soviet union without ever firing a shot.Brilliant strategy if you ask me.He also doubled the federal revenue which no one seems to know becuase for every new dollar he raised the democratic congress spent two,Yes Bush does remind me of reagan and I like him for the same reasons.Read Reagans letters and you will see that he was no puppet but an intelligent man with a vision for america.I would rather have us fighting the terrosit on their own soil than over here.I do not see any exrtreme policy here.Now Clintons war on Yugoslavia that was not right and was an extreme policy to me.He did it just to take him and Monica out of the headlines.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So it looks like you agree with most of what I said.I never said you didnt like americans just their gvernment and its policies.I also cannot stand anyone who promotes hate for any reason.As far as Panzers comment i think he may have gotten a bit carried away It was a poor choice of words but america has to take of its own saftey first.As foe Reagan no i am not kidding.He caused the collapse of the soviet union without ever firing a shot.Brilliant strategy if you ask me.He also doubled the federal revenue which no one seems to know becuase for every new dollar he raised the democratic congress spent two,Yes Bush does remind me of reagan and I like him for the same reasons.Read Reagans letters and you will see that he was no puppet but an intelligent man with a vision for america.I would rather have us fighting the terrosit on their own soil than over here.I do not see any exrtreme policy here.Now Clintons war on Yugoslavia that was not right and was an extreme policy to me.He did it just to take him and Monica out of the headlines.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (spud_gun @ Jan. 15 2004,17:37)]With regards to the sepreration of church and state - The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yes it clearly states that Government will neither do anything negative or positive towards ANY religion.


Quote[/b] ]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Congress... no law respecting... religion.

Join the dots so to speak.

It is a separation of church and state. The emphasis is that freedom of the people to choose the religion of their choice and not to have the state show favourtism to any of those religions.

----


Quote[/b] ]Our system of government and laws is based on Judeau and christian ethics.

Actually your consitution is based on the age of enlightenment. I would suggest reading the works of those gentlemen, particularly Voltaire.

[Dillinger]

Pu-lease don't try to bring the Religion made the constitution stuff into this.

That aside, Bush is an aggressive, confident, ambitious, and ready-to-act-preemptively kind of guy. Depending on the situation, this can lead to brilliance or oblivion. Obviously, to many it has lead to oblivion, and for others it has lead to brilliance.

He made a mistake by immediately shifting to Iraq. He should have left that for a second term, or omitted it permanently from the agenda, as Afghanistan is in a larger mess than Iraq will ever be in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I guess they teach a different form of american history in austrailia.I have never heard before anything about our constition being based on the age of enlightenment.Also your dots conviently leave out the word establishment.The purpose of this ammendmant is to say that there will be no relgion sponsored by the government and that all people may worship as they please.No where does it say that there is no place for relegion in government only that no religion will be held to br better than any other.The purpose is to avoid what happens in the Muslim countries that is a government run by religion.Like i said in the previous post check out what all the presidents from the civil war back have to say.They are always invoking the help of god.As a matter of fact to this day congress starts ith a prayer for guidance from god.Enough of this new interpation of what the first amendment meant .Its pretty dam clear to me.Next they will want in god we trust takin from our coins .You cant even say the pledge of alligance anymore cause it says 1 nation under god,Next they will want to change it so it dosnt say that our rights come from the creator.I could understand if there some religion was being persecuted here.Oh wait a minute seems to me its starting to be wrong to be a christian or a jew here.All this PC stuff makes me want to puke

[Papewaio]

Just read up about the age of enlightenment and you will see its effect.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] ]IV. Enlightenment and Religion

It was an age of reason based on faith, not an age of faith based on reason. The enlightenment spiritualized the principle of religious authority, humanized theological systems, and emancipated individuals from physical coercion. It was the Enlightenment, not the Reformation or the Renaissance that dislodged the ecclesiastical establishment from central control of cultural and intellectual life. by emancipating science from the trammels of theological tradition the Enlightenment rendered possible the autonomous evolution of modern culture. Diderot said, if you forbid me to speak on religion and government, I have nothing to say. Hence natural science occupied the front of the stage.


AGE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT (http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html)

[Gregoshi]

If you are unable to control your temper and your keyboard, I suggest you do NOT post. Walk away and come back after you calm down. Injecting excessive emotion into your posts serves only to distract the readers from points you are trying to make. Instead of thinking Joe made some good points they will be thinking Wow, Joe really lost his cool.

Anymore outburst and this topic will be shutdown.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] ]Anymore outburst and this topic will be shutdown.

This is one topic that can really use a strong arm of restraint, Grego, because it is immensely important AND can be a good exchange of views. Some folks do get p$$ed and resort to insults, and that detracts from the really important opportunity we have here.

But what the high degree of conflict shows me (highlighted by the threat of locking this thread) is that GWB has failed in one of his big promises - to be a uniter not a divider. He promised to end politics as usual, to reach out, to work with others. He ran as a centrist, but his actions have been divisive, his attitude cavalier.

His agenda has been win-lose, a person is either with him or against him. He resorts to secrecy, creating distrust, and power partisan politics, creating animosity. He hides logging behind healthy forests, massive budget increases and wild deficit spending as fiscal responsibility and a decrease in government accountability as freedom or patriotism.

Gah I hope the dems find a winner to run against shrub.
(hold on, there's a loud banging on my door, BRB . . . .xcvmkdvm ,,rspvmrvam,opsfgvi,dosgkbl[yprr . .cjxbjcvbdf fddddddd you can't come in heredfgerfighafidmbari

Nothing going on here folks. Keep moving

ichi (not the FBI, really, we are NOT the FBI. Do you hear me? Agent Johnson, tap that man's phone and get his IP address

[Storm_Of_Shields]

there r many good points and many bad but i must say that i think people r getting too invovled with it and makin enemies because of ones belief against the other ur all right and u r all wrong i think this topic has just gotten to be too much of a grudge match

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I want to apologise for my previous outbursts. I acted out of emotion, in response to a poor choise of words, and looked like a fool to many of you, if not all.

My most humble regrets...

*bows*

It won't happen again.




Quote[/b] ]As far as Panzers comment i think he may have gotten a bit carried away It was a poor choice of words but america has to take of its own saftey first.
It REALLY was a POOR choise of words.

I understand that America has to take care of itself, of course. Every nation in the same position has to do the same. But that doesn't mean it can bypass UN aproval. That is a bullying atitude.




Quote[/b] ]As foe Reagan no i am not kidding.He caused the collapse of the soviet union without ever firing a shot.Brilliant strategy if you ask me.He also doubled the federal revenue which no one seems to know becuase for every new dollar he raised the democratic congress spent two,Yes Bush does remind me of reagan and I like him for the same reasons.Read Reagans letters and you will see that he was no puppet but an intelligent man with a vision for america.
Well, I didn't read his letters, so I can't comment on his internal policy. I have a different oppinion on him. But it might be exagerated.

But you can't claim he was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. It fell due to decades of mismanagement and incompetence, of a flawed political system. Reagan just reaped the benefits.




Quote[/b] ]I would rather have us fighting the terrosit on their own soil than over here.
No arguing here.




Quote[/b] ]I do not see any exrtreme policy here.Now Clintons war on Yugoslavia that was not right and was an extreme policy to me.
But, the funny thing is: he had UN backing, Bush didn't. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Maedhros]

fighting terrorists is all fine. But that is a job for special ops, lighting raids, and extensive inteligence work.

Terrorists have no country. They have only hate and that exists everywhere.

Iraq had no real ties to terrorism, evene with all the threats that existed against him, Saddam never built close ties. That should say something about his position on working with terrorists.

He did have chem/bio weapons. We know this because many western countries, notably France and Germany but also the US helped him get them.

My concern is where are they now? When he was boxed in under siege by regular nato flights, ships and ongoing inspections the weapons were preumably kept safely hidden away.

But when we went in - whose hands were those weapons scattered into?

That we would invade was common knowledge. Bush made it clear a couple times when his handlers let him wander off his prepared statement during his presidential campaign?

Conventional wars like Iraq and Afghanistan will do more to promote terrorism than they will to contain or stop it.

Violence can only ever breed more violence.

[SPQR Panzer-Jager]

Well this topic has certainly taken off since i last visited. Let me restate my comments.

America is the strongest nation in the world, therefore it has both the privaledge and the burden of policing the world economically, politically, and sometimes militarily. You may whine and moan about this but there must be a stabalizing force in the world, if not, there would be anarchy. Throughout history the strongest powers have used their power to bring order into a disorderly, and dangerous world, such as the Roman and British empires. Imagine a world today without the United States playing policeman, with nucular weapons becoming more prevalent every day. And must i point out Americas entry into world affairs? Helping to save Europe twice and Asia once. Would Iraq be better off with Saddam in power, with his death camps and rape rooms? Would south korea be better off in the same boat of north korea? Would panama be better off with the death squads running around killing any who opposed noriaga(sp)? And probably the question most america haters have mentally blocked: Would the WORLD be better off under an oppressive communist society. Let me guarantee you that if america did not exist, we'd all be living in that communist paradise marx proposed and Stalin twisted.

Now you may not appreciate the thought of another country having some dominance over your own, but get used to it. America is the most benevolent superpower in history, and isolationism is still prevelant in this country. But keep in mind, America realizes her place in this world, even if small minded, jealous people do not. As long as america holds her place of military and economic dominance in the world, she will act to defend her own citizens, and any oppressed people in the world. And is that really so bad? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Aurelian]

Hi Gawain

I just wanted to jump in here about the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States of America. The United States was founded during the Age of the Enlightenment, roughly the 18th century (1700's). The Enlightenment was a reaction to the wars of religion that occured in Europe during the 1600's. The 1600's saw a breakdown of civil order in Europe, horrible atrocities commited in the name of religion, and a breakdown in the respect that Europeans had towards religious establishments and social conventions. European intellectuals began to promote the use of REASON as an antidote to what they considered religious and social SUPERSTITIONS. This was the era when science began to make great advances in Western culture.

Our Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightenment. They were well-read members of the colonial aristocracy whose ideas about proper government were informed by the writings of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. (Overview site on the Enlightenment below) http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html

While nominally Christians, most of the Founders were actually Deists, including: John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Today's fundamentalist branches of American Christianity would not have been willing to recognize our Founders as Christians. The Deists believed in a watchmaker God who simply created the universe and took no part in its further operation. They rejected miracles and particularist religion, instead emphasizing reason and deducible forms of universal morality. The 'Creator' that Jefferson had in mind when he wrote the Declaration of Independence was the Deist God of reason and natural law. (Site on Deism below)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

If you'll notice, there is no mention of God in the United States Constitution. The Founders did not use God as a justification for any of the principles contained therein.

While the Constitution allows free exercise of religion, the establishment clause has been interpreted to mean the separation of church and state simply because allowing any particular religious expression within the domain of government automatically excludes those who hold contrary religious belief systems. Put in conservative terms: Why should MY tax dollars be promoting YOUR religious beliefs?

(By the way Bush announced a plan to increase federal funding to religious charitable organizations today... Making the above discussion relevant to the Bush for a 2nd term debate) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

The use of both In God We Trust on our currency, and the use of one nation under God in the pledge of allegiance were additions made in the 1950's. Both were inserted into common usage as a way to differentiate America from the Soviet Union's godless communism. Neither practice is more intrinsically American than McCarthyism.

What is particularly funny about today's fundamentalist Christianity is that it claims to be persecuted and would like to establish itself as the semi-official state religion. However, the strength of Christianity in America (which is far more widespread than it is in Europe) is undoubtedly due to the separation of church and state and the ability of Americans to find their way into any particular cult or sect of Christianity that appeals to them.

P.S.

Quote[/b] ]All this PC stuff makes me want to puke

We really need a puking icon around here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is my understanding of what they meant by god also.Not one pertaining to any particular relgion but an all powerful being who looks over us all.No matter what religion we are.But they do recognize that there is a god and most of them were some kind of christian.As you say it has been interpated to be a separation of church and state .But that s a new interpatation.Believe in a higher power brings stability and order to life they knew that. theres nothing wrong with the governmeat acknowledging ther is a god as long as they do not pretend to no who he is or what religion he belongs to.You guys ever whatch south park.My favorite episode is where everyone goes to hell.Theres a councelor welcoming them all there,One guty says im a devote baptist i dont belong her another says he is a devote jew and that he dosnt belong there either.The counselor says sorry wrong religion .Its the mormons who were the right choice everyone else welcome 2 hell.By the way i am glad to see some civility returning to this subject.
One last thing Regan did break the soviet union by having an arms race that drove them broke.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oops one more thing Clinton did not have the UN s backing he used NATO there was no UN resolution

[altti]

Quote[/b] (SPQR Panzer-Jager @ Jan. 15 2004,22:50)]Well this topic has certainly taken off since i last visited. Let me restate my comments.

America is the strongest nation in the world, therefore it has both the privaledge and the burden of policing the world economically, politically, and sometimes militarily. You may whine and moan about this but there must be a stabalizing force in the world, if not, there would be anarchy. Throughout history the strongest powers have used their power to bring order into a disorderly, and dangerous world, such as the Roman and British empires. Imagine a world today without the United States playing policeman, with nucular weapons becoming more prevalent every day. And must i point out Americas entry into world affairs? Helping to save Europe twice and Asia once. Would Iraq be better off with Saddam in power, with his death camps and rape rooms? Would south korea be better off in the same boat of north korea? Would panama be better off with the death squads running around killing any who opposed noriaga(sp)? And probably the question most america haters have mentally blocked: Would the WORLD be better off under an oppressive communist society. Let me guarantee you that if america did not exist, we'd all be living in that communist paradise marx proposed and Stalin twisted.

US is not the stabilizing force in the world. It's the force that promotes the interests of US world wide. War of Korea was fought only because US feared that communism might spread otherwise. Mentioning Panama does remind me of US's poor track record in Middle- and South-America. Guatemala is my favourite: US managed to overthrow the first democratically elected president in Guatemalan history and set in motion the civil war that followed.



Quote[/b] ]Now you may not appreciate the thought of another country having some dominance over your own, but get used to it. America is the most benevolent superpower in history, and isolationism is still prevelant in this country. But keep in mind, America realizes her place in this world, even if small minded, jealous people do not. As long as america holds her place of military and economic dominance in the world, she will act to defend her own citizens, and any oppressed people in the world. And is that really so bad? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

What do Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Rios Montt have in common? They all received help from the most benevolent superpower in history. LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wacko.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]fighting terrorists is all fine. But that is a job for special ops, lighting raids, and extensive inteligence work.

Terrorists have no country. They have only hate and that exists everywhere.

Iraq had no real ties to terrorism, evene with all the threats that existed against him, Saddam never built close ties. That should say something about his position on working with terrorists.
Correct. An interesting point here.




Quote[/b] ]He did have chem/bio weapons. We know this because many western countries, notably France and Germany but also the US helped him get them.

My concern is where are they now? When he was boxed in under siege by regular nato flights, ships and ongoing inspections the weapons were preumably kept safely hidden away.

But when we went in - whose hands were those weapons scattered into?
Precisely. Americans lost face on account of not finding any.




Quote[/b] ]Conventional wars like Iraq and Afghanistan will do more to promote terrorism than they will to contain or stop it.

Violence can only ever breed more violence.
I agree. The way to combat terrorism revolves around information, intelligence and couter-insurgency operations.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]America is the strongest nation in the world, therefore it has both the privaledge and the burden of policing the world economically, politically, and sometimes militarily.
No. That's not the right attitude. Power doesn't imply a stand alone position. The UN should have the responsability of being the police of the world, not the USA.




Quote[/b] ]You may whine and moan about this but there must be a stabalizing force in the world, if not, there would be anarchy. Throughout history the strongest powers have used their power to bring order into a disorderly, and dangerous world, such as the Roman and British empires.
I agree that must exist a stablizing force in the world, but it's not the USA. It's the UN.

You can't give the example of the Romans or of the British Empire, because their motives were related to the exploitation of other nations for their own benefit. They were Imperialistic Powers. They weren't interested in peace, they just wanted more wealth and power. By claiming that example, you're just giving reason for USA's foreign policy detractors.

Besides, today's global society is a very different factor to take into account. No nation will take agression easely. The Romans and British based their conquests on prejudice. They were the enlightned ones. They considered the others Barbarian. Pretty strange, since the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Indians had a much older and sometimes wiser civilization.




Quote[/b] ]Imagine a world today without the United States playing policeman, with nucular weapons becoming more prevalent every day.
Are you forgeting that the USA started the nuclear proliferation?
Or do you think other countries would like you to be the only ones with that terrifying power?




Quote[/b] ]And must i point out Americas entry into world affairs? Helping to save Europe twice and Asia once.
True. No argument about that. But that is not what were talking about. We aren't in a global conventional war.




Quote[/b] ]Would Iraq be better off with Saddam in power, with his death camps and rape rooms?
No, but you should have taken care of that in the 1st Gulf War.
Besides, who maintained him im power all these years? The USA did. By selling him all kinds of weapons, before and during his wars with Iran.




Quote[/b] ]Would south korea be better off in the same boat of north korea?
Of course not. But South Corea was part of the global geostrategic balance. It wasn't for humanitarian concerns.




Quote[/b] ]Would panama be better off with the death squads running around killing any who opposed noriaga(sp)?
Again, of course not. But the USA let him slip by for so many years, because you could be sure he was a controlable puppet. Your interest there, was the Panama Channel, a crucial geostrategical asset. Only when he treatened did you intervine, because he was denying USA the use of the Channel. Once again, goestrategical interests, not humanitarian...




Quote[/b] ]And probably the question most america haters have mentally blocked:
I hope you aren't calling me an america hater. Because if you are, that means you're totally missing the point.




Quote[/b] ]Would the WORLD be better off under an oppressive communist society.
No. But a balance of power means no one becames a bully.




Quote[/b] ]Let me guarantee you that if america did not exist, we'd all be living in that communist paradise marx proposed and Stalin twisted.
No, we wouldn't. The Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Nazis and Japanese, and we would all be living in a Fascist-Imperialitic Racism-based society. Concerning this gruesome possibility, you should read The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick, one of your countrymen.




Quote[/b] ]Now you may not appreciate the thought of another country having some dominance over your own
You're right. No one does. Not even you, if you were in my place.




Quote[/b] ] but get used to it.
No, I won't.




Quote[/b] ]America is the most benevolent superpower in history, and isolationism is still prevelant in this country.
So you think. I don't agree. It's a matter of the political lies each of us wants to believe.




Quote[/b] ]As long as america holds her place of military and economic dominance in the world, she will act to defend her own citizens, and any oppressed people in the world. And is that really so bad?
You missing the point again.
The right way to act according to Democratic terms, is with the UN: a coalition of countries that enforce, together, common resolutions for the GOOD of ALL.
Not a single nation on a Crusade to save The World, like the USA claim, with their own interests in the bag.


You forget some important facts of History. Don't you know American History?
The USA wasn't solely founded around the Democratic, Equalitarian, Liberty terms. The USA were also built on prejudice and agression. America had Thomas Jefferson, but also had slavery in the 19th century America had their Democratic, Humanist Constitution, but also performed the Indian (Native Americans) slaughters

Not very HUMANISTIC, USA's part in these events. USA has it's own responsability on GENOCIDES.


You are a very naive person if you think all your governement's actions are well-meant. In every country, politicians look up for their own agenda most of the time, not the people's agenda. Don't be fooled...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Relating to Gawain of Orkeny:


Quote[/b] ]One last thing Regan did break the soviet union by having an arms race that drove them broke.
The arms race started at the end of WW2.

Are you talking about the Star Wars program?
That was just a drop in an already filled cup. The real reasons were much older.




Quote[/b] ]Oops one more thing Clinton did not have the UN s backing he used NATO there was no UN resolution
OK, you got me there. I was wrong. So, Clinton was just like Bush. It was a forcefull manouverer too. But that just reinforces my position on the matter.



Relating to altti:


Quote[/b] ]US is not the stabilizing force in the world. It's the force that promotes the interests of US world wide. War of Korea was fought only because US feared that communism might spread otherwise. Mentioning Panama does remind me of US's poor track record in Middle- and South-America. Guatemala is my favourite: US managed to overthrow the first democratically elected president in Guatemalan history and set in motion the civil war that followed.
Very true. Americans have the tendency to forget their flaws and their dubious moves. They are sooooooooo perfect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif




Quote[/b] ]What do Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Rios Montt have in common? They all received help from the most benevolent superpower in history. LOL
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Antalis::]

Maybe Bush will fly with the Mars Express to the Mars and then he could win the election... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The arms race may have started after WW2 but it ended under regans watch.Check with any historian they will tell you that americas military build up under him caused the collapse of the soviet union.As for the UN I have never seen a more worthless organization in my life other than their himanitarian efforts.We are not going to have a bunch of third world american hating countries telling us what to do I wish they would move the UN out of the US just gives more peopla a chance to spy on us.

[Bezalel]

Gawain of Orkeny, first of all, it's Reagan. Second, calling them third world world countries only accentuates their point that we're a bunch of pompous arses. Don't say things that harm your point. When you say things in a frenzied manner, people are less likely to beleive you and more likely to think you're crazy. My bottom line, the U.S. isn't as bad a people make it out to be, and we're not as good as others will make it out to be.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]As for the UN I have never seen a more worthless organization in my life other than their himanitarian efforts.
No wonder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Do you know one of the reasons for that?

When the UN goes against anything that the USA might slightly disagree, you don't stay neutral. You do every effort to boicot the organization's objectives.

When the USA wants something, that might be hampered by an UN resolution, it forces every nation to change for a pro-American vote, without regard if the resolution is correct and logical or not.

Even when a resolution is aproved that you don't like, you refuse to oblige to that resolution




Quote[/b] ]We are not going to have a bunch of third world american hating countries telling us what to do I wish they would move the UN out of the US just gives more peopla a chance to spy on us.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked2.gif Now who's being paranoid? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shifty.gif

Most of them don't think that way. But since you are all used to the Conspiracy Theories you fail to see the broadeer view:

Sometimes the USA isn't right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Second, calling them third world world countries only accentuates their point that we're a bunch of pompous arses.
Yeap, he is only giving reasons for American detrators. That way, he is even giving reasons for those that support the USA, to change sides...



Quote[/b] ]My bottom line, the U.S. isn't as bad a people make it out to be, and we're not as good as others will make it out to be.
Finally an American in the same wavelenght http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

That's exactly my point. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Dillinger]

Just the simple fact that a nation (let alone the most powerful on earth) can defy the global community alone proves the UN's worthlessness. Without stronger, more forceful policy, the UN will become no more effective than the imperial Roman Senate. When a nation, whether it be the USA or Ecuador can disobey a direct UN statement with out consequence, it needs to be fixed.

[SPQR Panzer-Jager]

Aymar: First of all you seem to place all your faith and hopes for world peace and stability in the UN. Im sorry to burst your bubble but theres no more corrupt an organization on earth than the UN. I dont put one ounce of faith into an organization that has Lybia as head of its human rights committee, and iraq earlier The UN has been markedly anti-american AND even more so anti-semitic Wasnt the UN setup to stop the atrocities of ww2? I hope you arent so naive as to think the UN is a place where nations meet to solve world problems for the betterment of humankind. Quite the opposite, the UN is a place where countries compete for their own intrests. It is nothing but a tool countries use to get international approval for their own subversive intentions. Also, the UN has no real power at all, as seen in the iraq ordeal. Iraq simply ignored the UN until the US stepped in. And the excuse used so often by america bashers is why didnt you take Saddam out in the first gulf war, i believe you used that one yourself. In fact, the US did not act to take out Saddam in the first gulf war because it was not in the UN mandate So, the UN actually allowed 10 more years of saddams horrible regime. The fact is the UN would be all but powerless if the US was not a member. Except for Britain, the US has been the only major contributor of troops to the major UN sanctioned wars.(Korea, gulf war) I am not saying that other countries didnt contribute, but America put far greater numbers of her own troops in harms way to enforce UN rulings than any other country. (although i must point out again, Britain always contributes a large number of troops) My beliefs arent fringe by a long shot, in fact theres a growing movement in America to pull out of the UN because of how corrupt it is.

Secondly, you said that America started Nucular proliferation. This is not true. America and Germany were in a mini-arms race throughout the war to produce a nuke. America, thank God, was first to make the weapon.

Thirdly, you speak of all the horrible events in the history of America. What the americans did to the indians was wrong, but hardly a genocide in the definition of the word. It seems america haters throw around genocide when speaking about the way the indians were treated because it arouses hatred and disgust. Genocide is an organized MASS killing of a people. The fact is that american polocy was never to kill innocent indians purely because they were indian. Yes this happened sometimes, and im hardly appologizing for these heinous deeds, but it was far from a genocide. And you must not forget there was a War in the west. Indians were doing quite a bit of killing themselves of innocent settlers. Again, to make sure you completely understand me, im not appologizing for what america did to the indians, but it was NOT a genocide in the proper use of the word.

As for slavery, it was widespread in Europe for hundreds of years before it ever came to america. There are very few civilizations in this world that can claim theyve never been involved in slavery sometime in their history, so dont even try to act as if America is evil today for employing this relatively common practice 150 years ago. And dont forget more american lives were lost in the war to end slavery than have been lost in any other conflict the country has been involved in.

Finally, you complain that america acts around the world purely for her own intrests. First of all this is not true, America is willing to help any country gain its freedom if they are willing to help themselves. And yes, America takes her own intrests into account before acting in the world. Whats so bad about that? Show me a country that doesnt act to promote its own intrests, it will be a long search.

To sum up, America is hardly a perfect country, but can any country claim that title? The fact is, America has saved millions of people around the world from oppression, whether she was acting in her own intrests or not is up for debate but you cannot argue that those people would be free without america. And what does she get in return? Hatred and terrorism... The best way to encompass american foreign polocy can be taken from a popular saying here in the states: If you dont start nothin, there wont be nothin. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Bezalel]

SPQR Panzer-Jager, the Civil War was initially over the secession of the southern states. The cessation of slavery was later the rallying call of Lincoln.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The reason the south left was that they were afraid that slaevery was going to be abolished under Linclon and that their way of live would be threatened.There were slave and non slave states and people were dying over the fight against slavery before the war even started.Can you tell me a country who abolished slavery before us?
And whats this abot being insulted about third world countries.Its like being upset for being called a democrat.Third world country is a fact not a slur. Again here we go with the politacly correct nonsense.I didnt make up the term.I won t say any more on that as Panzer has covered it pretty well.
ok so I spelled Reagan wrong once outa like 10 times you can do better than that.
The UN did a great job in Ruwanda and somlia sorry if i spelled them wrong.It seems now to be proud of america and to stick up for her makes you a pompus ass.Can any of you tell a nation in history that was as powerfu; as america and that has been as benevolent or has done so much for the world.I can see that the rest of the world really appreciates it.

[Dillinger]

Umm, about the first question, I believe Britain did.

I hope the rest of the world realizes we're not all extremists ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Aymar: First of all you seem to place all your faith and hopes for world peace and stability in the UN. Im sorry to burst your bubble but theres no more corrupt an organization on earth than the UN.
That might be true. Corruption must be fought and defeated. But the main issue is the principles that created the organization. Those are the important ones and must not be forgotten. The same goes for the USA. The fact that, like everyone else, the USA has problems with corruption, doesn't mean you must forget the US Constitution that created your country. On the contrary, those principles must be remembered even more.




Quote[/b] ]I dont put one ounce of faith into an organization that has Lybia as head of its human rights committee, and iraq earlier The UN has been markedly anti-american AND even more so anti-semitic Wasnt the UN setup to stop the atrocities of ww2?
No. It was created after WW2. To stop them beeing repeated.

Libya and Irak are countries like many others. It wouldn't be democratic to deny them representation, no matter what we feel about them...

And the UN isn't markedly Anti-American. You just seem to think so. In a place were antagonistic objectives are discussed, many times there are marked conflicts of interest. It will always be like that. The basis of democratic discussion are based on that.




Quote[/b] ] I hope you arent so naive as to think the UN is a place where nations meet to solve world problems for the betterment of humankind.
I know it isn't, but it should be everyone's goal to make it like that, even if we never achieve such a purpose.




Quote[/b] ]Quite the opposite, the UN is a place where countries compete for their own intrests. It is nothing but a tool countries use to get international approval for their own subversive intentions.
Yes, but it involves ALL countries. Democratic, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Also, the UN has no real power at all, as seen in the iraq ordeal.
Precisely, it should have more power, not less.




Quote[/b] ]Iraq simply ignored the UN until the US stepped in. And the excuse used so often by america bashers is why didnt you take Saddam out in the first gulf war, i believe you used that one yourself. In fact, the US did not act to take out Saddam in the first gulf war because it was not in the UN mandate
OK, you're right in here.




Quote[/b] ]I am not saying that other countries didnt contribute, but America put far greater numbers of her own troops in harms way to enforce UN rulings than any other country.
Hey, man. USA is a very wealthy country with a population of about 250 million. Your army, because of the cold war, is one of the greatest in the world. My country is poor and only has 10 million people. Although that, we've been in Bosnia, in Afganistan and Irak. In fact, my country's soldiers have been in almost every UN peace-keeping intervention.




Quote[/b] ]Secondly, you said that America started Nucular proliferation. This is not true. America and Germany were in a mini-arms race throughout the war to produce a nuke. America, thank God, was first to make the weapon.
When some country has an edge, all the others will try to fill the gap. It could have happened to another country, but it happened to you. It just amounts to the same.




Quote[/b] ]Thirdly, you speak of all the horrible events in the history of America. What the americans did to the indians was wrong, but hardly a genocide in the definition of the word.
Tell that to the Native Americans. They were 5 million across the continent in the 1700s and less than 500 thousand in the beggining of the 20th century. It wasn't just foreign diseases that killed them.




Quote[/b] ]It seems america haters throw around genocide when speaking about the way the indians were treated because it arouses hatred and disgust. Genocide is an organized MASS killing of a people. The fact is that american polocy was never to kill innocent indians purely because they were indian.
Surelly not. What about the mass killings of praire bisonts to starve the Sioux to death? That surelly must have happened by acident. Not an official US Army policy... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif




Quote[/b] ]Indians were doing quite a bit of killing themselves of innocent settlers.
Poooooor inocent settlers. Stealing their lands... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

Sure they were killing them. They had EVERY reason to do it.

I don't know if you understand: THEY WERE BEEING INVADED

You would do the same as they did nowadays... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Again, to make sure you completely understand me, im not appologizing for what america did to the indians, but it was NOT a genocide in the proper use of the word.
Of course not. What was I thinking???... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-uhoh.gif




Quote[/b] ]As for slavery, it was widespread in Europe for hundreds of years before it ever came to america. There are very few civilizations in this world that can claim theyve never been involved in slavery sometime in their history, so dont even try to act as if America is evil today for employing this relatively common practice 150 years ago.
But in most of Europe, in those days, slavery was already illegal for more than a century. Slow start, hey? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Finally, you complain that america acts around the world purely for her own intrests. First of all this is not true, America is willing to help any country gain its freedom if they are willing to help themselves. And yes, America takes her own intrests into account before acting in the world. Whats so bad about that? Show me a country that doesnt act to promote its own intrests, it will be a long search.
Haven't you understood what I told you before?
EVERY country always looks for their own interests. What I was saying is that the USA is not an exception. The problem is when the USA claims one motive and acts based on another. Since you are so powerfull and influential, everyone looks at you. So, accordingly, you should set a good example, not a bad one...




Quote[/b] ]To sum up, America is hardly a perfect country, but can any country claim that title?
Of course not. No country is. As no person is.




Quote[/b] ]The fact is, America has saved millions of people around the world from oppression, whether she was acting in her own intrests or not is up for debate but you cannot argue that those people would be free without america. And what does she get in return? Hatred and terrorism...
Yes, that's true. But you forget that Americans have exploited some of those countries before they started hating the USA. That is one of the reaons for it.




Quote[/b] ]If you dont start nothin, there wont be nothin.
That's a broad interpretation of things. Sometimes it can be good, sometimes it can be bad.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Can you tell me a country who abolished slavery before us?
Read a little of History. A lot of them...




Quote[/b] ]And whats this abot being insulted about third world countries.Its like being upset for being called a democrat.Third world country is a fact not a slur. Again here we go with the politacly correct nonsense.I didnt make up the term.I won t say any more on that as Panzer has covered it pretty well.
It wasn't the term. It was the way you said it. Pompous...




Quote[/b] ]Can any of you tell a nation in history that was as powerfu; as america and that has been as benevolent or has done so much for the world.I can see that the rest of the world really appreciates it.
You seem to forget one important fact. Today's society has evolved more in the last 100 years, than from the previous 500

What was acceptable in those days, isn't anymore. What was considered good, isn't enough today.

And is that bad?

No. Because it means that we've come a long way. And it means that although we still have a way to go, principles have evolved.

You should be happy. The USA were influential in those changes too.

But even you can't linger, you got to evolve too. You feel unapreciated and don't understand why, despite all your efforts.

That's due to a lot of factors. Selfishness, greed and old hatreds are influential too. But also because everyone expects more from all the others and every country more from every other.

I'm not saying it's fair, but life never was... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

Of course I'm painting an ideal, innocent picture of it, but I'm trying to be positive, as well as expressive. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It wasnt the way I said it but the waay you took it.I didn t say thw whole UN is made up of third world countries only that there are a bunch of them that hate the US and that its ludicras for us to listen to them.As for slavery we werent even a country when it started here, and we had it abolished within 90 years of our founding not such a slow start.When Panzer mentions slavery was rampant in europe long before here you say what was excetable then has changed today stop living in the past,Well the same goes for us and the indians you would never see the US do anything like that now.
I think america is the greatest county the world has ever known if thats being pompus so be it.You agree that the UN has very little power without the US and say it should have more.Well I guess you mean that we should give up ours and give it to them as we are the ones who have.I pray that day never comes.I dislike the new world order and the globalist plan for the world.
Someone I believe said that Briran was as benevolent as america.When they were a super power they had colonies all over the world and did as they pleased no one told them what to do.And ask the Scotts gow benevolent they were,Talk about genicde.
Is america perfect? Heck no no country is but all things comsidered there is no country ever with our amount of power who has weilded so lightly.America is a good country who has helped the world tremendously sure weve made mistakes but so has everyone.The point is the world is much better off for us being here.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]When Panzer mentions slavery was rampant in europe long before here you say what was excetable then has changed today stop living in the past
I don't understand. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Could you explain it better?




Quote[/b] ] I think america is the greatest county the world has ever known
Well, it is the 4th greatest in area, yes... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

There are a lot of particularities that are relevant in denying your claims.

For instance, about the way you feel you should be internationally recognized. The USA is always concerned about someone getting the better of it in everything. You are always trying to get on top, without regard for methods, actions or consequences. You're unhealthly competitive. You get competitive paranoia easely.
Mind you, I'm not saying you shouldn't be competitive. I'm saying that you put that goal above everything else.

Your leaders tend to be very single-minded. That reflects the spirit of a great part of the nation. Even if it is not on a consciencious basis. So, they tend to take stuborn and non-negociable positions on several important internal and foreign affairs issues.

You say you are open to new ideas but, you are way too conservative for that to be true. Specially your upper class and your rulers.

Yes, you say your society is very tolerant, but everyone knows that's not true. You have enormous intolerance problems within the American society. Bigger and more varied than anyone else.

In the world's richest country, a lot of Americans live on complete poverty. Social exclusion is a known fact, and a known fact to be ignored.

In the society that invented savage capitalism, your corporations crush every person opposing them. In the States, when they misbehave, they are arduosly controled by the governement. In the rest of the world, they clobber anyone in to a pulp.

Your sense of security has always been a main issue but, you tend to go over the edge about it. I'm not just talking about anti-terrorism and such. Anything strange is cataloged as to be avoided. And if it stirs, you just say burn the m***er f***er.

Do you remember the American citizens of Japanese origin imprisioned in concentration camps in WW2? The witch-hunts of the 50's? The famed Black List?

If you want, I can give quite a few more examples, but you only need to take a little look at the past to understand. Sometimes even just seeing the news.

And I could go on and on...




Quote[/b] ]if thats being pompus so be it.
It is.




Quote[/b] ]Well I guess you mean that we should give up ours and give it to them as we are the ones who have.
See? You fail to see my point.

Don't you understand that power doesn't need to be exclusive to a nation? In fact, it's worse that way.

That nation will get targeted so much more.

Besides, you wouldn't loose power.

You fail to see that empowering the UN will not threath the USA. That concept is part of your paranoia of they are ALL against us. It's not true. Empowering the UN will allow you to stop getting criticized for untimely, unjustified interventions. You can say:

We? We have nothing to do with that It's an UN intervention, sanctioned by +100 countries

I'm not saying you need to isolate yourselves No way

I'm just saying that, your relutance is caused by the fact that you want to remain in charge of everything and everyone...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All I see here is your opinion and no facts

[Phatose]

Re: Slavery in America

If I remember my history correctly, slavery isn't just a european institution the colonists took with them when they left for America. I seem to distinctly remember that British law during those times allowed no man to be permanently enslaved - black, white, indian, the law didn't care. It was only legal to hold a man indentured for 7 years, and after that he had to go free. While the Africans who arrived as 'servants' were given no choice in the matter, when they arrived in the U.S., british law ensured that they became equivalent to a poor european who accepted indentured for passage. After the revolution, primarily at the behest of southern plantation owners, a law was passed that made any man born in the union have the status his mother had at his birth for life. Essentially this created slavery as an institution in the U.S.

Wish I could remember the name of the act. Perhaps one of the more historically minded members knows.

[mercian billman]

I not 100% sure but, blacks were brought into the colonies because indentured servants would try to run away from their masters. Most of them could just blend in, and they would go unfound. Obviously a black man wouldn't blend in as well, and slave traders began importing them into America. When the blacks came here they became property of their masters not identureds.

Some states like Pennyslvania banned slavery before they became states but, most northern states abolished slavery after the revolution.

[Nelson]

African slaves were introduced to the Americas because too many of the indigenous people who were enslaved died from old world diseases. West African rulers were happy to provide replacements.

[SPQR Panzer-Jager]

Quote[/b] ]For instance, about the way you feel you should be internationally recognized. The USA is always concerned about someone getting the better of it in everything. You are always trying to get on top, without regard for methods, actions or consequences. You're unhealthly competitive. You get competitive paranoia easely.


You may see the US as too competitive, but i would say Europe is too lazy. (Ive lived in both places) Take the french for example, and there 50 hour work week. Or the way european nations neglected their defenced forces in favor of more social programs. They now spend and average of 2% on defence. Europeans in general have taken on an attitude of what is the government going to do for me. In the last few decades Europe has swung so far left its almost socialist, and in some countries it very much is. Europeans seem to have decided that they would rather have the government regulate their lives, which has its benefits, like economic and job security. (I think it takes several years of paperwork to be fired in france.)The cost of this socialistic society is a loss of both rights and a competitive spirit. (Take englands loss of their firearms for example.) You can see it even in your own post, which has a generally bad attitude toward competition. Keep in mind that fierce competition kept the western world free from communism, brought us to the moon, brought us computers and tvs and cars and..... everything


Quote[/b] ]Your leaders tend to be very single-minded. That reflects the spirit of a great part of the nation. Even if it is not on a consciencious basis. So, they tend to take stuborn and non-negociable positions on several important internal and foreign affairs issues.


Explain to me which leaders were single minded. And dont try to claim Bush is, he has not only fought a war on terror, but pushed his plan for the economy, passed an important medicare bill, fought against abortion, negotiated successfully with communist china to return our pilots, signed the largest nucular arms reduction in history with russia, reorganized bureaucracy- condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency,fought for the privatization of social security,improved govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid,turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, cut our taxes almost as fast as clinton raised them :P, committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa,issued a roadmap for peace in the mideast, cleaned up the national forrests to prevent more fires, freed millions of iraqis, and is trying to send man to mars And thats just off the top of my head...





Quote[/b] ]You say you are open to new ideas but, you are way too conservative for that to be true. Specially your upper class and your rulers.


Explain to me whats wrong with conservatism. So america doesnt want to abandon the values, morals, and traditions it was founded on and has carried to this point like Europe has, whats wrong with that? I would say Europe has flung herself so fair into the liberal wasteland that she cant even remember her roots. Its sad to me as im German born.. but its true.


Quote[/b] ]Yes, you say your society is very tolerant, but everyone knows that's not true. You have enormous intolerance problems within the American society. Bigger and more varied than anyone else.


Thats simply not true. American culture is almost color blind today, and racists are to be shunned by the majority. The KKK is all but dead, colleges give minorities extra points in their admission requests simply for their race, and there are countless organizations in america whose sole purpose is to make sure everyone is treated equally. Also, europe can hardly claim to be tollorent. It is as anti-semitic today as it was in the 1930s Remember the last french election... A candidate in america would never get national recognition for his anti-semitic, anti-foreigner views.


Quote[/b] ]In the world's richest country, a lot of Americans live on complete poverty. Social exclusion is a known fact, and a known fact to be ignored.


Yes there are poor people in America, but very few living in complete poverty. The US welfare system is very generous, some would say too generous.



Quote[/b] ]In the society that invented savage capitalism, your corporations crush every person opposing them. In the States, when they misbehave, they are arduosly controled by the governement. In the rest of the world, they clobber anyone in to a pulp.



This isnt true. It can be seen by the recent corporate scandles like Enron. Companies are being made to pay for their actions. And yet again you reveal the classic european socialist undertones. savage capitolism-Have you been so used to being dependent on the government that now evne capitolism scares you?


Quote[/b] ]Your sense of security has always been a main issue but, you tend to go over the edge about it. I'm not just talking about anti-terrorism and such. Anything strange is cataloged as to be avoided. And if it stirs, you just say burn the m***er f***er.


More anti american propaganda that has no basis in realitiy. That hardly makes sence.


Quote[/b] ]Do you remember the American citizens of Japanese origin imprisioned in concentration camps in WW2? The witch-hunts of the 50's? The famed Black List?


Yet again your throwing around words the arouse an emotional responce. The camps were hardly concentration camps in the modern usage of the word. They Japanese were given ample food, supplies, entertainment and everything else they needed.


Quote[/b] ]You fail to see that empowering the UN will not threath the USA. That concept is part of your paranoia of they are ALL against us. It's not true. Empowering the UN will allow you to stop getting criticized for untimely, unjustified interventions.

You seem like a person who has some grasp of reality and global politics. Do you actually believe that the US would just give power to another body, full of america-hating countries i might add, just to stop getting criticized? And where will this power come from? As long as America IS the military of the UN, it will hold a special place above the other nations. Try contributing more actual muscle and less talk, then you will be recognized.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ] Take the french for example, and there 50 hour work week.
So, you like to spend your life working? No time for family and friends, no time for yourself or cultural and ludic activities. Good for you, not for me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Or the way european nations neglected their defenced forces in favor of more social programs. They now spend and average of 2% on defence. Europeans in general have taken on an attitude of what is the government going to do for me.
So, what's wrong in taking care of the population?
Better than an absentee state policy.




Quote[/b] ] In the last few decades Europe has swung so far left its almost socialist, and in some countries it very much is.
You mix up Comunism (Soviet style) with Moderate Democratic Center-Left. That's not even comparable. These guys just want to improve equality and living conditions, not Sovietize society. Again, paranoia on your part...




Quote[/b] ]I think it takes several years of paperwork to be fired in france.
Where have you heard that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
Funny you think that way. Tell that to the unemployed French... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif




Quote[/b] ]The cost of this socialistic society is a loss of both rights and a competitive spirit.
Wrong. A gain on rights and better work conditions, therefore equal competitiveness at no expense of worker's health.




Quote[/b] ]You can see it even in your own post, which has a generally bad attitude toward competition.
Wrong gain. I never said anything against healthy competition, only against EXTREMIST views on competition. Please read my earlier post again. Or is paranoia bluring your vision? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ] Keep in mind that fierce competition kept the western world free from communism, brought us to the moon, brought us computers and tvs and cars and..... everything
And the first satellite in space (Sputnik), the first living beeing in space (Laika), the first man in space (Yuri Gagarin), the first walk in space (Alexei Leonov), etc... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Besides, after Kennedy your Space budget was 100 times that of the Soviet Union http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

That was the reason (and Von Braun) that you got to the Moon first...




Quote[/b] ]Explain to me which leaders were single minded. And dont try to claim Bush is, he has not only fought a war on terror, but pushed his plan for the economy, passed an important medicare bill, fought against abortion, negotiated successfully with communist china to return our pilots, signed the largest nucular arms reduction in history with russia, reorganized bureaucracy- condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency,fought for the privatization of social security,improved govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid,turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, cut our taxes almost as fast as clinton raised them :P, committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa,issued a roadmap for peace in the mideast, cleaned up the national forrests to prevent more fires, freed millions of iraqis, and is trying to send man to mars And thats just off the top of my head...
The NEW MESSIAS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

I was just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Explain to me whats wrong with conservatism. So america doesnt want to abandon the values, morals, and traditions it was founded on and has carried to this point like Europe has, whats wrong with that? I would say Europe has flung herself so fair into the liberal wasteland that she cant even remember her roots. Its sad to me as im German born.. but its true.
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Forgeting our traditions? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

The EU is a Economic Union, not a bluring of cultural, ethnic and historical traditions. Obviously, you've never really had any contact with the multitude of traditions of the European populations. If you had, you would see that they are alive and well




Quote[/b] ]Thats simply not true. American culture is almost color blind today, and racists are to be shunned by the majority. The KKK is all but dead
I wasn't talking just about Racism. But you seem strangely focused on that particular thing. Bad conscience? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]colleges give minorities extra points in their admission requests simply for their race, and there are countless organizations in america whose sole purpose is to make sure everyone is treated equally.
Minorities shouldn't get extra points. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif You're over-compensating. You're making an unjust situation turn into another. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-uhoh.gif




Quote[/b] ]Also, europe can hardly claim to be tollorent. It is as anti-semitic today as it was in the 1930s
Sure we are Haven't you heard of the latest concentration camps spread all over Europe? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif




Quote[/b] ]Remember the last french election...
Well, Le Pen is a dangerous men. But he only achieved that voting percentage because of the ENORMOUS absentees in the 1st round. Most of those who hadn't voted, were liberals and moderates. He was crushed in the 2nd round.




Quote[/b] ] A candidate in america would never get national recognition for his anti-semitic, anti-foreigner views.
Of course not. Remember Ross Perot? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Yes there are poor people in America, but very few living in complete poverty. The US welfare system is very generous, some would say too generous.
Sure. I forget about the PROSPEROUS LOOK of the homeless in America http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif




Quote[/b] ]This isnt true. It can be seen by the recent corporate scandles like Enron. Companies are being made to pay for their actions.
That is a very recent tendency.




Quote[/b] ] And yet again you reveal the classic european socialist undertones. savage capitolism-Have you been so used to being dependent on the government that now evne capitolism scares you?
No. I've beeing living in a capitalist society for all my life...




Quote[/b] ]More anti american propaganda that has no basis in realitiy. That hardly makes sence.
No basis on reality? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Let me give you a simple example among many others:

I've seen on CNN, a white upper-class woman saying:

They should all be emprisioned and expelled We shouldn't let these bastards in our country I'm a TRUE American My family has been here for 4 generations

She was talking about 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim Americans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

What gives that woman the right to say such stupid words? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

What about the Native Americans? They were in America for 800 generations before the first settlers

If her perspective is true, only Native Americans are the TRUE Americans, not the European, Asiatic, African or Middle East immigrants




Quote[/b] ]You seem like a person who has some grasp of reality and global politics. Do you actually believe that the US would just give power to another body, full of america-hating countries i might add, just to stop getting criticized? And where will this power come from? As long as America IS the military of the UN, it will hold a special place above the other nations.
Preciselly. You don't want. You are greedy for power. That's the main reason.




Quote[/b] ]Try contributing more actual muscle and less talk, then you will be recognized.
Haven't you read my earlier post?

You got in trouble alone, because you wanted it. Accordingly, you should solve it alone.

Other nations who don't agree on your actions, have no reasons to help you. And they shouldn't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Gregoshi]

We seemed to have strayed off topic a bit into the old and neverending US vs Europe/World debate again. We haven't had one of these in about six months. Should I tell you how it ends or do you want to keep at it and find out yourself? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[MiniKiller]

not sure tuff. better him than gore for first term but i mean he did do alot for us. war? we had to its that simple. he did well but it al ldepends on who he runs against.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No europe isnt communist its socialist just a more benevolent form.We are the strongest because of our competive capotialist society which you seem to find so much wrong with.As for the homeless thats their choice for the most part.There are shelters for them but they choose to live in the streets.Many are drug addicts or mentaly redarted that used to housed in asylums here but we were told that was taking away their rights .They are so much better off now lol.You find some woman on cnn making some stupid remark,Are you sure she meant 2nd and 3rd generation muslims?Did she specify that?As for the russian space prgram how many of them died because of its ineptness and when it came down to doing it right we won hands down.Also have you noticed that the soviet union dosnt even exist anymore.Shows you what socialism takin to far will lead you.
How can you deny that the more power and the more you rely on the government the less rights you have,Another point whos idea was the UN.I believe a guy named Woodrow Wilson strated the league of nations on which the UN is based.Remember the end od ww1 he wanted to treat the germans much better than those wonderful europeans did.Maybe if they had listened to him WW2 would never ahve happened.I guess he was another of those radical single minded americans you speak of.
How about the billions of dollars in foriegn aid america provides every year.And when theres a disaster even in Iran who are the first ones to help and contribute the most,Boy we are really selfish.You say that you dont want america to be isolationist.Well of course what would happen to the rest of the world then.We send jobs and prosperity all over the world,One last thing Mauri what country are you from so we can better understand where you are coming from?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]We seemed to have strayed off topic a bit into the old and neverending US vs Europe/World debate again. We haven't had one of these in about six months. Should I tell you how it ends or do you want to keep at it and find out yourself?
Well, I didn't really wanted to get involved in world politics and social analysis, but people kept replying with some strange views, that I just had to reply. And now I've been at it for 2 weeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

I think we all know the end of it... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]We are the strongest because of our competive capotialist society which you seem to find so much wrong with.
I don't find that so much wrong. You seem to think I do.




Quote[/b] ]As for the homeless thats their choice for the most part.There are shelters for them but they choose to live in the streets.Many are drug addicts or mentaly redarted that used to housed in asylums here but we were told that was taking away their rights .They are so much better off now lol.
Well, that's news to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif




Quote[/b] ]You find some woman on cnn making some stupid remark,Are you sure she meant 2nd and 3rd generation muslims?Did she specify that?
Oh, yeah She was speaking of ALL American and non-American Muslims Incredible, isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif




Quote[/b] ]As for the russian space prgram how many of them died because of its ineptness and when it came down to doing it right we won hands down.
Hey, man Don't you have a sense of humour? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

Besides, the USA still had it's share of problems.




Quote[/b] ] How can you deny that the more power and the more you rely on the government the less rights you have
Because I can. Because I know the pros and cons of each situation. My country knows both sides of the coin.




Quote[/b] ]Another point whos idea was the UN.I believe a guy named Woodrow Wilson strated the league of nations on which the UN is based.Remember the end od ww1 he wanted to treat the germans much better than those wonderful europeans did.Maybe if they had listened to him WW2 would never ahve happened.I guess he was another of those radical single minded americans you speak of.
Have you been reading? Really reading and understanding what I've said? You had and you still have great political personalities. Although less lately. I've never argued about that. However, today's American political environement is mostly benevelous to the highly-mediatized custom-built big show-off politician. More show-off, less ideas...

As for the League of Nations and the UN, the later was an attemp not to fall on the same mistakes as the former did.




Quote[/b] ]How about the billions of dollars in foriegn aid america provides every year.And when theres a disaster even in Iran who are the first ones to help and contribute the most,Boy we are really selfish.You say that you dont want america to be isolationist.Well of course what would happen to the rest of the world then.We send jobs and prosperity all over the world
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sick.gif

You're sooooooooooooooooooo full of yourselves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

Why do you ALWAYS feel the need to say: We are this, we are that...

Is it insecurity? Bad temper? Not enough shrink consultations? Stomach problems? Heartburn? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

Why do you, anytime that someone tries for you to make a little self analysis, treat him like the agressor?

Yes, the USA spends billions in foreign aid, so do other countries. The problem is that you make it sound like every other country doesn't.

Yes, US companies give a lot of jobs abroad, so do other country's companies. But, just like other country's companies, you also exploit people there. Remember the child labour problems in India, with one of your biggest multinationals? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

Yes, the USA is a great country, but far from perfect. Yes, the USA has made many things that Humanity is thankfull for, but also some others that Humanity isn't. Yes, the USA is a good example in a lot of areas, but a bad one in others. Yes, most Americans are great persons, but some aren't. And I could go on and on...

See the patern?

I'm not attacking you I'm trying to make you realise that no country or people is PERFECT. No political system is PERFECT. No society is PERFECT. And that everyone should have the humility to recognize that, specially the citizens of the USA, because they always tend to disregard such facts.




Quote[/b] ]One last thing Mauri what country are you from so we can better understand where you are coming from?
You're going to make a political backgroud analysis to deconstruct my reasoning? Sure. Go right ahead. But it's important for you to realise that, any non-fundamentalist non-American with a little of political know-how and a with a similar or different political background from mine, would reach similar conclusions...

It's Portugal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[kiwitt]

Bush will be re-elected and Hillary Clinton will be next after 4 years.

i.e. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

[Myrano]

Yeah, I'm afraid Bush will be re-elected. Ah well. It happens, and I hope we shall perservere.
But Hilary? That's an... interesting... prediction. But hey, stranger things have happened. (And a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession would be... different.)

As far as America vs. the World goes... we're all people. We all act the same, in a given set of circumstances. The actions of America have been no better or worse than the those of all empires, once you account for technology.

I will say one thing, though. It is my belief that America is indeed ahead of Europe when it comes to the tolerance issue. Ok, laugh now. Keep laughing. When you're done read on. Thanks to slavery and massive immigration, our population is *much* more diverse than that of most European countries. (In the UK, I hear they have English and Scots -- Ok I'm sorry that was bad. I know you have plenty of other people too, but I think my point is valid.) As such, we are dealing with our race issues now. In Europe, however, immigration is very much on the rise, leading to the formation of groups such as the British National Party (equivalent of the Know-Nothing party of 19th century America whose anti-immigrant views were against the Irish). IMHO, European countries will have to seriously start dealing with race issues in the coming decades or century. Hopefully, they can learn from American mistakes (and there have been plenty).

I know that that was more than a little off topic, but hey, there it is. European views on this would be much appreciated.

And by the way, Gawain, please stop. You're making us look bad.
-Myrano

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I guess you dont read my posts in almost everyone I say that the US is not perfect that we make mistakes and so does everyone else.Do you think the homless here live in the streets because they cant afford a place to live if so you have alot to learn.Amd who was this woman making those remarks a government official do you think she represents what most americans feel.I didnt see as I never whatch the clinton news network http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .Sure other countriees send foriegn aid but do any come close to what we send?If we mention the good things america does you either call us pompus asses or say we are full of ourselves.By the way Prtugal has much to be proud of back in the age of sail she was one of the greatest countries in the world and in modern times has pretty much been able be preety neutral and mind her own buissness.You wont see me tearing down your country.Its easy to find fault with america because she is so big she leaves a big footprint.Nut in general the good we do far out weights the wrong and that is my main point.I believe the world is a far better place because of us.

[kiwitt]

Thankfully it is not America vs the World. It is Big Business vs the Individual. A battle we can not win.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh i dint notice your final comment Myrano how is sticking up for america making us look bad.At least im not going around bashing other countries. can you please be more specific and show me some of the terrible things ive said to make you say that.As for hillary heaven help us if she is ever elected,Thought I doubt thatwill ever happen as she is to polarizing a force and can never carry the south.If she run you will see republicans coming out of the woo work and voting in record numbers again this is only my opinion.In fact most of this argument seems to be a difference of opinions and philosophy to me it will never be settled .We could probably keep this up for years and years without getting any where except further apart.

[Papewaio]

1. Russians lifted about twice as much mass into space then Americans. Russian rockets are the workhorses, while space shuttles are show ponies.

2. Do you know what % of aid is unfettered (ie can be used to buy from anyone) and what % of aid is not aid but weapons.

[Bezalel]

Hillary isn't even running for democrat. It's Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark as the main four.

[kiwitt]

Quote[/b] (Bezalel @ Jan. 18 2004,20:04)]Hillary isn't even running for democrat. It's Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark as the main four.
Note it will be Bush re-elected then Hillary will run in 2008.

[Myrano]

Nothing personal, Gawain, just do a little more research first, that's all. Sticking up for America doesn't make us look bad, and I agree completely with your point that it is easy to find fault with America because she leaves a big footprint.
The one thing I am forced to disagree with you on is homelessness. While there are a lot of people on the streets for what may or may not be called their choice (drug addictions, mental problems, etc.) it is false to say that everyone on the streets *wants* to be on the streets. One of America's biggest myths is that of the Horatio Alger stories, that is, that anyone who works hard can be a millionaire.

Oh, and Kiwitt, what exactly did you mean?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nothing is absolute of course not all the homeless are drug addicts and mentally ill but a great many if not most are, You cannot deny that their numbers have risen significantly since all the mental hospitals were closed down.What we call poor is considered well to do in a lot of countries in africa.And by that im not talking of the homeless but those on welfare or with low paying jobs. Here in NY during the current cold spell the police had to go out and round them up and force them to take shelter.If they really want to get off the street there is help available is my point.So i made a few mistakes im not perfect either and never claimed to be so have most of the others here,But I feel my main points are valid and sure I get carried away sometimes as i feel that the rest of the world dosnt appreciate us.And no one believes if you work hard you will automatically be rich but you sure wont be living in the street either.You cant deny that if you want to work in america you can at least get a job where between your work and government assistancee you will have some kind of roof over your head.Again this is not absolute Im sure there are some exceptions as there are to everything but im sure that it is very rare.We even give illeal imigrants welfare and medical care for pete sake.

[SPQR Panzer-Jager]

Myrano, whats truly making america look bad are people like you who would actually consider having hilary as president.

The entire issue(american society and culture vs european) can be summed up realitively easily. Europeans expect their government to provide everything for them, Americans expect their government to provide an enviroment where they can succeed if they apply themselves and work hard. Europeans believe believe that the populace must be equal, that no man is better than another. In america, the individual is still held above the populace. Europeans have accepted dependency on their government, americans have not and will not. The spirit of independence bred into every american and the american society in general is what separates the country from the rest of the world.If America sees the rest of the world jumping off the proverbial bridge, shes not going to jump along with it. Its her independence from the rest of the global community that makes america so great, and so hated.

In fact, George W. Bush resembles america in many ways. Hes strong, focused, unwavering, moral, independent(of course), and not afraid to act when others dont have the will power. GWB, like america, faces alot of criticism for his actions, but wat makes him a great man, and makes america a great country, is the fact that both do whats RIGHT not wats popular at the time, and history will prove this. Remember all those hundreds of thousands of protestors when Reagan went to Europe, dont they feel foolish now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

To Gawain of Orkeny:


Quote[/b] ]I guess you dont read my posts in almost everyone I say that the US is not perfect that we make mistakes and so does everyone else.
I've been unable to spot that. Good to know you known it.



Quote[/b] ]Do you think the homless here live in the streets because they cant afford a place to live if so you have alot to learn.
Can they? That's news to me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif




Quote[/b] ]Amd who was this woman making those remarks a government official do you think she represents what most americans feel.
A common citizen expressing herself. I'm sure she doesn't represent most Americans, but she really does give EVERYONE, a POOR impression on tolerance. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif




Quote[/b] ]Sure other countriees send foriegn aid but do any come close to what we send?
Of course, each country sends what is willing to give or what it can. But you forget that you're the wealthiest country in the world. Accordingly, none other can reach your levels of spending.




Quote[/b] ]If we mention the good things america does you either call us pompus asses or say we are full of ourselves.
No. Only when you fail to see the wrongness of certain specific actions, do I engange in criticism. I do the same for every other nation or person.




Quote[/b] ]By the way Prtugal has much to be proud of back in the age of sail she was one of the greatest countries in the world and in modern times has pretty much been able be preety neutral and mind her own buissness.
Yes, we performed great achievements, but also criticizable ones. We have great qualities and great flaws too. Just like everyone else...




Quote[/b] ]You wont see me tearing down your country.
Of course not. I didn't start bashing the USA, I started disagreeing on a future Bush re-election. The talk evolved into American Foreign Policy and then that led to the way USA is percieved by the world. A quick side-step led to a subsequent analysis in American History, with all the Pros and Cons involved. Since the topic was never about my country, you couldn't be tearing it down. We weren't talking about it.




Quote[/b] ]Its easy to find fault with america because she is so big she leaves a big footprint.
Yes, you have a point here. But, since the USA is so big and important, it must measure each step much more carefully.




Quote[/b] ] Nut in general the good we do far out weights the wrong and that is my main point.I believe the world is a far better place because of us.
Yes, I agree.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

To Myrano:


Quote[/b] ]One of America's biggest myths is that of the Horatio Alger stories, that is, that anyone who works hard can be a millionaire.
I agree.



To Gawain of Orkeny:


Quote[/b] ]And no one believes if you work hard you will automatically be rich but you sure wont be living in the street either.You cant deny that if you want to work in america you can at least get a job where between your work and government assistancee you will have some kind of roof over your head.
How many unemployed does the USA have?




Quote[/b] ]We even give illeal imigrants welfare and medical care for pete sake.
So does my nation. And most European ones.



To SPQR Panzer-Jager:


Quote[/b] ]Europeans expect their government to provide everything for them, Americans expect their government to provide an enviroment where they can succeed if they apply themselves and work hard.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif Nice perception of Europe. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

How can you say such blunders? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked2.gif

You keep mixing up a strong wellfare system with poor work dedication? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked3.gif That means a lot of your analysis capabilities. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

Some of the Europeans like a powerfull governement because they need it to regulate greedy, dishonest private enterprises with unjust policies or greedy, dishonest citizens with false swindling claims. And they want a powerfull wellfare system, to protect the injured parts on each of those cases. Do you think that European economy would hold it's own, if we didn't work hard? In fact, do you expect for European Governments to protect lazy a**holes? It isn't in anyone's interest achieving such a goal. And it NEVER was. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif




Quote[/b] ]Europeans believe believe that the populace must be equal, that no man is better than another.
Sure. That is why most European countries have garbage men running the government, politicians playing professional football, hairdressers running big corporations and retards teaching Quantum Physics... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif




Quote[/b] ]The spirit of independence bred into every american and the american society in general is what separates the country from the rest of the world.If America sees the rest of the world jumping off the proverbial bridge, shes not going to jump along with it. Its her independence from the rest of the global community that makes america so great, and so hated.
Hey, how about singing the Stars & Stripes aswell? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif




Quote[/b] ]In fact, George W. Bush resembles america in many ways. Hes strong, focused, unwavering, moral, independent(of course), and not afraid to act when others dont have the will power. GWB, like america, faces alot of criticism for his actions, but wat makes him a great man, and makes america a great country, is the fact that both do whats RIGHT not wats popular at the time, and history will prove this.
ROTFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

You are a definitelly a DELUDED person

Facing such a sad example, I'll rest my case and abstain from further comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[makkyo]

Quote[/b] ]In fact, George W. Bush resembles america in many ways. Hes strong, focused, unwavering, moral, independent(of course), and not afraid to act when others dont have the will power. GWB, like america, faces alot of criticism for his actions, but wat makes him a great man, and makes america a great country, is the fact that both do whats RIGHT not wats popular at the time, and history will prove this.
Going to war and actually doing something is a lot better than rolling over and dying like the French. We had family die on 9-11 and the American peoples want their lives avanged.

[spud_gun]

Quote[/b] (makkyo @ Jan. 19 2004,16:40)]
Quote[/b] ]Going to war and actually doing something is a lot better than rolling over and dying like the French.
Silly comment, sorry, but if you look at the history of France circa WW1, and as an Englishman belive me, it pains me to say this, they lost a generation of fighting men, so when WW2 came around there was no real chance for them. The Mangiot(sp) line was a fantastic idea, but Hitler decided to go through the Ardenes(sp)instead, classic move, make your enemy think your going one way, then go the other, we call that selling a dummy.

As I said before I'm English, so after defending the French, rightly or wrongly, I must now fall on my sword http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Edit: Just swaping emoticons around http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smoking.gif

[Lord Of Storms]

I have read this topic on and off for some time and it has degenrated into yet nother U.S.A versus Europe Thread.
Boring, and whats worse I am not seeing any links to the facts that back up some of the statements made. Poor form indeed, it is easy to make accusations against any nation or to base a nations ideaologies on the comments of one person http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
My nations better then yours blah,blah,typical Anti-European-Anti-U.S. rhetoric, give me a break, let us see some facts
For myself I learned the hard way to not get involved in political threads,(I post in this one in my Moderators capacity) more times then not they get ugly, and it is just not worth it,In my opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif it's not what these forums are about.
But to each his own, agrue, debate just keep it civil and state some facts to back up what you say it gives more credibilty to your arguement and no name calling or I will shut you down http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Thanks for your cooperation...LOS

[Papewaio]

Pape Rant Coming Through.

Ok to take it off Anti-EU/US

All northern hemisphere guys suxor

You wouldn't know independance if a croc bit your flabby ar$e or a tuatara bit your sanger off at your meatballs.

Independence is not being a drone. Repeating words on how independent you are.

Independence is not having a mother state of regulations.

Independence is not saying how independent you are then being sent to your room by your Mom.

[kiwitt]

Avenging (even for 9/11) is not a good thing whatever the reason. It has been used as justification for eons.

When you retaliate, it is almost always not in proportion to the loss you incurred. Be it less or more. This imbalance causes stress and tension on both sides.

The reparations on Germany after WW1 caused its anger and resentment. The Sanctions on Iraq caused it a lot of pain. The Palestine and Israeli attacks are currently imbalanced.

I believe dialog, mediation and reconciliation are the only way for the world to go forward. The main point if you don't talk, nothing will happen. Even if talk achieve nothing immediately, you must continue to try. Attack simply hurts the innocent.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok lets get back to what this thread is really supposed to be about.Polling people who dont live in america dose not really mean much now does it.Or polling people who are not old enuff to vote.In every poll conducted in alerica Bush beats every democratic contender thats the polls that count.When the rest of the world can vote for our president then it will have some relavance.
I afree with storm we are getting no where with the rest of this europe vs america stuff excett causing bad feelings in the community IMHO so I will no longer have anything to say on the subject.As I have said many times before we are all entitled to our opinons.Its starting to lok like we are better off keeping them to ourselves. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Papewaio]

Considering the influence of the multinational companies on campaigns in USA are you sure your statement is true?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh do the players posting here have anything to do with multinational companies and their effect on campaigns here.Also I guess im blind and dumb as I dont no which international companies they are or their effect.Even if we take your point the fact still remains that Bush beats every democrat in every poll.

[Aurelian]

Actually Bush is statistically even with the unnamed Democrat. Drudge had this story on his site today:

Domestic Issues Hurt Bush In Poll; Unnamed Democrat Pulls Nearly Even...

Link:
Domestic Issues Hurt Bush in Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29858-2004Jan19?language=printer)

Of course, the state of the union address is tonight, so Bush will get a big jump from that. All those people flipping channels will say Oh, yeah. That guy is president.

In a couple of weeks those same people will be ready to vote for Simon from American Idol.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well this ia a washington post survey or what Im not quite sure,But the post is a very liberal paper to be sure so you cannot just go with their anlaysis.But everything now in the news is about the Dem candadates they have been bashing Bush for months and yederday would be a high poinyt for them IMHO.Wait till we see who their candadate is and Bush starts returning fire.I believe most americans feel tha national security comes before anything and on this Bush is the clear winner.

[NewJeffCT]

Quote[/b] (SPQR Panzer-Jager @ Jan. 19 2004,03:25)]In fact, George W. Bush resembles america in many ways. Hes strong, focused, unwavering, moral, independent(of course), and not afraid to act when others dont have the will power. GWB, like america, faces alot of criticism for his actions, but wat makes him a great man, and makes america a great country, is the fact that both do whats RIGHT not wats popular at the time, and history will prove this. Remember all those hundreds of thousands of protestors when Reagan went to Europe, dont they feel foolish now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Gag, Bush moral? This is a guy who admittedly abused alcohol; has not denied that he used cocaine; has been arrested not once, not twice, but 3 times, becoming the first president in US history to actually have a record when elected to office; he blew up frogs with firecrackers as a youth; reportedly has a mistress, just like his daddy; grew up as a child of a privileged family that got rich illegally selling goods to the Nazis into 1942; paid for an illegal abortion for an old girlfriend; etc.

Meanwhile, he has taken more vacation days than any president in recent history (breaking the record of his father) And, when not vacationing, he spends record amounts of time at big bucks fundraisers.

And, independent? This is a guy who's administration has bent over backwards to accomodate Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Drugs, etc while gutting environmental regulations that his own EPA had said had saved the US billions in the 90s.

Focused and unwavering? His entire platform of 2000 has been reversed. Watch the hysterical Daily Show Clip of Bush the Candidate debating Bush the President. He also ran around the country in an airplane after escaping from elementary school on 9/11. His top priority when coming in to office was the Star Wars Missile Defense program. Clinton was poo-poo'd as being too obsessed with terrorism and bin Laden and the just completed Hart-Rudman report that warned of an imminent bin Laden attack on the US sat on a desk in Cheney & Rice's offices unread until 9/12.

And, I guess I would be physically strong if I had the time
to take as much vacation time as he does. Mentally strong? I don't think of anybody that has abused drugs & alcohol to be mentally strong.

[Dillinger]

Aymar, you are slanted. Period. You figure that if one point is dis-provable and false and irrelevant, that the whole person, and all the points he/she could make, is irrelevant, as they made one mistake. Please.

All Gawain is trying to say is that America, even with its faults, is still a great nation. When he tries to give an example, you brush it off with an emoticon. Why can't you except that some nations are stronger, wealthier, and generally more powerful than yours?

You tell me if tomorrow, we wake up and Portugal has become the leading world power, with the Americans, French and Germans snipping at her, disecting every action it takes, every move it makes, and then, discarding any shread of evidence otherwise, declares (secretly, of course) Portugal to be a 'bad' nation. Declares her to be unfit, cruel to her homeless, power-hungry, poorly-headed and all the other assorted problems. You probably wouldn't be too happy, as, the way you (rightfully) look at it, Portugal has done the world lots of good. It was a beacon for democracy, champion of Capitalism, and dispatcher of tyrants. It was the most righteous, stabile, and free super-power the world has ever seen.

Please Aymar, consider all of the points, and not just the ones that are irrelevant.

[Myrano]

Quote[/b] (SPQR Panzer-Jager @ Jan. 19 2004,03:25)]Myrano, whats truly making america look bad are people like you who would actually consider having hilary as president.
I take exception to that for two reasons.
First, it is overtly political, and we are supposed to be discussing Bush, not random political figures (though I acknowledge this is my fault too). Also, it is attacking me for my (presumed) beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.
Second, I never said anything indicating that I would indeed support Hillary for president; I was trying to insert some humor/sarcasm, though perhaps I should have used smileys to convey that.

Also, I doubt that that our non-American friends would look down on America because some people support a certain person for president; Lord knows we all have our share of loonies.

[Myrano]

I basically agree with Dillinger on his point that were the positions of the US and any other country swapped the exact same thing would be happening. Though all the arguments wouldn't be identical, the thrust of it would be. People all over the world are pretty much the same; it is the circumstances that separate us. That was the point of my original post.

Also, I would like to know what some Europeans think about my racism idea that I posted a while ago.

[Myrano]

Finally, (sorry for blabbing so much) back on topic.
I will not be voting for Bush this coming election because I do not agree with his social policy. In fact, I detest the views of the conservative Christians (Christian Coalition, etc...) who run the Republican party. (Granted, the people who run the Democrats aren't a whole lot better... the Democratic party has been torn apart with nearly every major crisis in the last two centuries...)

[Gregoshi]

...And so it came to pass that after two warnings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stop.gif, the participants in the Bush for President topic still couldn't resist taking shots at each other. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-whip.gif Thus, before things got http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-argue.gif and someone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-bomb.gif , the topic was closed.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif