BBC has Bush:254 Vs Kerry 252 (Electoral College votes, they need 270 to win).
I'm hoping for Kerry but Bush looks most likely
Well it looks like we're all doomed again with a madman at the helm of the good ole US of A.
I'm not sure Kerry would have been better, but a change is usually good IMO.
For those in the US what's the feeling where you are?
Nick
oh no, not again.
look on the bright side, with american policy, he can only server a maximum of another 4 years!
Hhhmm BBC hasn't called it yet.
BBC has Bush:254 Vs Kerry 252 (Electoral College votes, they need 270 to win).
I'm hoping for Kerry but Bush looks most likely
They're dragging it out with the old "every vote counts and every vote will be counted" spiel, but it looks pretty much decided to
me.
Of course a last minute showdown and lengthy re-count with legal action and some serious scandal would be most entertaining though!
will they never learn ..... another 4 years of madness look out Iran and North Korea
Well from someone living here........
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
GO W..
Better the madman you know.......
There's no certaintity that Kerry would have been any better and it looks like we'll never know.
What we do know is what Bush is like and that we now have another 4 years of the socalled "War on Terror" that is IMO more of an
"Incitment to Terror".
His domestic record aint very good either, what about the war on unemployment and poverty? I guess he'd rather fight the war on taxes for the top 10% and personally benefit from both that and the war on iraq. Surely there is some sort of code of ethics involved in being a president. Yes, ok, that's naiive but still...
Its the people in grey suits in the backround that pull the strings. Those people are on the whole unelected and don't change from one president
to the next !
Best recruitment man BIN laden ever could wish for.
Four More Years!!!!
Four More Years!!!!
Four More Years!!!!
Shootist,
Can you give us some more views/opinions from the other side?
What's the general feeling in your area?
Surprise, Surprise the BBC are already talking about a feared rise in oil prices due to the expectation of continued trouble in the middle east.
If we spent as much money on developing our own means of powering ourselves as we do on ensuring we can get the oil from the east we wouldn't
need the oil. I suspect we would then lose interest in fighting with them fairly quickly!
Can any of our USA members tell me why 'Republican' is spelt 'GOP'?
Puzzled of Suffolk.
george W bush
I think I know what the W stands for
atb
steve
Wilbert? 
GOP=Grand Ole Party
The general consensus in my area is that Kerry has no record to speak of, flip-flops on issues, and claims to be "at one with the common
man" while he actually makes 10 times the annual income that Bush does, and pays less than half the tax rate of Bush.
Kerry claims to be "a hunter and gun owner" but has in fact voted for every single piece of gun control legislation, in cluding a ban on
semi auto rifles that would ban the shotgun he posed with in one of his ads.
He acused Bush of failing to properly equip our troops, and of entering the "wrong war at the wrong time", but he voted to authorize the
war, and them voted against the funding to get needed equipment.
Almost everthing he accused Bush of has been dispoved, yet he continued to make those same accusations. Accusations were all Kerry could do during the
campaign because he did not in fact have any thought out plans to fix any of the aledged problems, but assured us he would fix them.
If you access the poling data you will find that most people who voted for Kerry, did not vote FOR Kerry, but in fact voted AGAINST Bush.
I don't expect you guys across the pond to have much knowledge of our nation political system, but it is truely frightening how few of our own
people had any idea what the issues were.
surely the W stands for WAR!
Shootist,
An interesting point on people voting against Bush rather than for Kerry.
Are there any other voting options besides Bush, Kerry or abstaining?
I was going to keep my mouth shut on the subject, but ar5e it!
We have just sent a message to the world that we are a NATION (of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS) with disagreements certainly, but overall with a vision. The
victory went to G. Bush and a decisive majority in both the House and the Senate for a reason. The American system works and the results at the polls
show that the system works.
When terrorists stop their jihad against the west then we will lay down our arms and the world will coexist peacefully again. The radical muslims are
against everything that the west symbolizes and they won't stop their jihad just because we stop fighting the war. You are just silly to believe
that.
This war was brought to 'US' just as Japan brought it to us in WWII, when incidentally we awoke from a lumbering sleep and saved YOUR asses
and all of western Europe, but you have forgotten THAT...
Well the USA has again been woken from it's lumbering sleep and WE do NOT quit! We are the pillar of freedom and democracy in the world. Bending
to the will of radical muslims will not further the ideals of freedom and democracy. I firmly believe that the problem should be dealt with now and
not later. Because as blind as you might like to stay, the problem of terrorism will not go away until we break it.
This is a divisive issue and I expect that you Libs will all attack me for my opinion. However, I just wanted to say my piece. I firmly believe what I
do and I won't be goaded into any arguments about it.
Graber
BTW - Recently Kerry was asked why his IQ scores and his college entrance examination scores were lower than Bush's. ... Absolutely STUNNED
Kerry. No answer. So please refrain from calling Bush stupid in that sense because he almost certainly has a higher IQ than 95% of the population and
that includes the Bloviating Kerry. source
Whoa there Steve, say what you think - don't pussy foot around
Well said Steve....
err, id refrain from pointing out subtleties about WW2 , in the same context as IRAQ
It never ceases to amaze me that wherever I have gone in the world everybody you speak to is amazed that the US voted in Bush (and I'm sure will
be equally amazed they voted him back in) - and yet in the US he has such a lot of support. I certainly do not know a single person in the UK that
wanted Bush back in - anybody on this list?
It's Blair's support of Bush and his questionable foreign policies that will be the primary reason that he may loose the next election or at
least the leadership of the party.
Nobody would question the US's anger at 9/11 - but going to war against a country that had no connections with the organisation that caused it
still completely baffles me. All our venerable leader will say in his defence when questioned on the subject (and it's the same answer Bush
gives) is that Saddam was a very nasty man and the world is a better place without him. If this logic is followed I presume that Uganda (and a whole
heap of other African countries), North Korea, Myanmar (Burma) and of coarse lets not forget China (for it's actions in Tibet) are next on the
list?
One day the US will wake up and see that terrorism can never be defeated by aggression - you just breed more terrorists. We tried it with Northern
Ireland, Israel is still trying it with Palestine (though it looks like they are slowly waking up - though not with much help from their Western
supporters). The only way to end terrorism is to remove the need for it and the causes of it.
And before you say it - I'm not a US hater - I have many American friends and business associates and travel there frequently - I think a lot of
the proplem is the way most US TV news portrays events abroad - it always seems very narrow minded.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for my views - but I know they are commonly held here in the UK and amongst more liberal people in the US
Well put Jasper. I don't think it really matters which guy ended up as President as I don't think their foreign policy would have changed
either way.
Our American friends don't always appreciate that we all feel bad about terrorism here too - they are not the only victims.
We show that we haven't forgotten WW2 etc. by our armed forces standing alongside US forces in Iraq and elsewhere when neccessary.
Mark
Roosevelt started that war by cutting Japans oil, which was his original intention. He was also warned that Pearl Harbour was a bad idea as a base for
the fleet but was intent on goading the Japanese, but they struck harder than expected. I'm not politically motivated at all but I'm not
brainwashed either. Edit here:-
It was his way of getting into the war without appearing to support Communist Russia. America was not an innocent bystander attacked out of the blue
but a victim of its foreign policy, looking for a way to get into the war without appearing to be an aggressor.
[Edited on 3/11/04 by Peteff]
Some good comments!
On the terrorism angle I find it amazing that the west in general seems to focus on the wrongs that have been done to us. There seems to be precious
little attention paid to looking at why these things are happening and what may have been done in the past to inflame the situation.
I'm constantly disapointed by the lack of honesty from our elected leaders about their motivations for going to war. I strongly believe that
the middle east's oil reserves are the prime mover for the west's interest in the region.
These are my personal opions, but I'm always keen to hear what others believe.
Nick
.....that we don't appeciate the help from the Brits, and everyone else who came to our aid.
The fact of the matter is that this IS WWIII. We are all fighting a collaboration of madmen who have the sole target of destroying everything that the
west imbodies.
The last Al Qaeda video mentions bankrupting America as a goal.
Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda..... Through "oil for food" funds, and the use of borderlands to set up training camps.
Somehow when this info comes out it never sees much press. I wonder why?
quote:
Originally posted by sgraber
This war was brought to 'US' just as Japan brought it to us in WWII, when incidentally we awoke from a lumbering sleep and saved YOUR asses and all of western Europe, but you have forgotten THAT...
First off - You guys ARE our allies. We have to assist each other. I apologize for earlier comments about WWII. (I will not edit my prior post.) But
I strongly insist that parallels between the 2 wars do exist.
With your indulgence I quote Clifford D. May in a June10, 2004 article;
"The British historian Michael Burleigh, in his massive study of the Third Reich, defines Nazism as a “political religion” manifesting itself as
a “cult of violence and destruction.”
Could there be a better description of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athism?
Nor is that mere coincidence. Ba'athism is the direct ideological descendant of Nazism. Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis points out that in
1940, the French government surrendered to Hitler “and a collaborationist regime was established in Vichy. The rulers of the French colonial empire
had to decide whether they would stay with Vichy, or rally to De Gaulle. … Syria and Lebanon were at that time under French mandate, and these French
officials stayed with Vichy, so Syria and Lebanon became a center of Axis propaganda in the Middle East. That was when real Fascist ideas began to
penetrate. There were many translations and adaptations of Nazi material into Arabic. The Ba'ath party, which dates from a little after that
period, came in as a sort of Middle Eastern clone of the Nazi party and, a little later, the Communist party.”
Communism, Nazism and Ba'athism are all totalitarian ideologies--aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of democratic
societies. Nazism and Ba'athism are radically anti-Semitic; Communism, in its Stalinist expression, is at least Judeo-phobic.
The key distinction is that the Nazis claimed that the “Aryan race” was entitled to rule the world. Communists wanted the proletariat as the ruling
class, a role Ba'athism reserves for Arabs.
Ralph Peters, a military strategist, observes that Saddam embodies “the European tradition of a tyrant sustained by a bureaucracy of terror. Europeans
pioneered the methods. Saddam is merely an imitator.”
Peters has called the war in Iraq “the most important ‘hot' war America and Britain have waged since World War II.”
Of course, Nazism was not the only aggressive totalitarian ideology against which the Allies struggled. There also was Japanese Militarism and Italian
Fascism.
Similarly, Ba'athism is not the only ideology against which America, Britain and the other coalition nations are today fighting – there also is
Radical Islamism.
That ideology, too, is aggressive, violent and totalitarian. It seeks a world dominated not by Aryans, proletarians or Arabs but by extremist Muslim
fanatics. Lewis maintains that while bin Laden's ideology contradicts basic Islamic teachings, it does arise “from within Muslim civilization,
just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christian civilization.”
Other historians would argue that Hitler represented an older, neo-pagan and anti-Christian impulse.
The British historian Andrew Roberts calls Osama bin Laden's style “essentially Hitlerian in its vernacular and antecedents.” Robert concludes:
“Might not the War against Terror be legitimately seen as a re-fighting of the Second World War by proxy? I believe it can be.”
Paul Johnson, another esteemed British historian, observes that, “Geopolitics is like a game of chess: You have to think a dozen moves ahead. This is
as true today as in 1944-45. When President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to destroy Saddam Hussein's military power, they
took a risk that was abundantly justified both geopolitically and morally.”
Johnson does scold Bush and Blair for not being adequately prepared for the public relations problems that must be expected when fighting a chronic
insurgency in the age of 24-hour television news, an era when journalists “have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue
the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders.”
The military historian John Keegan adds that “the serried ranks of self-appointed strategic commentators who currently dominate the written and visual
media's treatment of the Iraq story have a duty to stop indulging their emotions and start remembering a bit of … history.”
In other words, quite a few experts would disagree with the Communist Senator Helene Luc and Moroccan immigrant Abu Mohammed -- quite a few scholars
would say that the struggle we are engaged in today against a lethal brand of totalitarianism is very much like the struggle against a lethal brand of
totalitarianism that was fought in the last century. What's different, it seems, are the media.
Or maybe not. Throughout the 1930s, there was only one prominent voice warning of a gathering storm, urging that steps be taken to stop Hitler before
it was too late. That voice was Winston Churchill's – and the prestigious Times of London was among those in the elite media who denounced him as
a “war-monger.”
Yeah.....what Steve said.....
wow steve, that reads like a political thesis for a university degree. I mean that as a compliment.
lots of info in there that in the main I couldnt possibly comment on without a lot of further research.
I think however you have to look at things from the other side too.
to quote you
"Communism, Nazism and Ba'athism are all totalitarian ideologies--aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of
democratic societies. Nazism and Ba'athism are radically anti-Semitic; Communism, in its Stalinist expression, is at least Judeo-phobic.
"
From the other side, it could be seen that democracy is also a regime seeking to expand itself over the world, and at the moment, in Iraq, by force
and invasion. Yes, people might be glad that saddam is gone, but i doubt they are particularly happy in iraq - and we will only leave once we have
installed our own vichy style govenrment. you can only vote for who is put forward - i guess its not the iraqis that will choose the candidate
lists........
ive seen opinions of americans that the right to bear arms is essential, to protect yourself from federalism. People hold these views extremely
strongly. I suspect people hold similar stong views when they return with a loaf of bread to their house in Falluja to find a B52 has just wiped out
your wife and 6 kids. Do you mope around, or do you find al zakawi - or whatefver the frig his name is - and start chopping heads off without mercy.
Or strap a bomb to yourself and walk into a cafe in jerusalem.
this is a way complicate issue, and gunboat diplomacy doesnt work too well. If it did, then 1776 wiould not have happend.
atb
steve
ps
as always, excuse the typos!
[Edited on 3/11/04 by stephen_gusterson]
i wanted bush to win, so there... it seems people fall into two camp, either camp overlooking some small puddles in their moral high ground.
However, bush has made , IMHO, a good stand against the fanatics. Iraq may or may not have been to do with Osama, however, thats how the cookie
crumbles. He got taken out cos his time came. there is no process underway against other 'bad' nations, so it might be years until the likes
of mugabe get crushed. I would charge him, and others, with crimes against humanity, and then make the moves necessary to bring him to trial.
Ideally, a surgical strike rather than a costly (in life and money) invasion. Iraq was under the international spot light since the early 90s after
the gulf war, and his time just ran out, hurried along by the war against the taliban ending. good ridance i say.
i also wanted bush to win, at least in part, to silence the critics (the wobblers, as they were called before the iraq war).
however, in regards to jaspers comments on the causes of terrorism, great care must be taken to keep the moral high ground. Unfortunately, errant
bombs and unruly prison guards dont help. still, IF YOU GONNA MAKE AN OMMLETTE, EGGS WILL GET BROKEN.
mugabe!!!!
what a joke
we are gonna play cricket over there.
but we invade iraq!
hes old and will die before tony even things of sending him a nasty letter, let alone intervening.
problem is, if we feel we can go to zimbabwe and sort the regime out, cant osama use the same logic against bush?
ie attack someone that doesnt suit your morals - and lets face it, they vary a whole lot in the world.
atb
steve
very true steve, but that assumes all morals are equal. IMHO, they arent. there is a definate right and wrong across the board, it is not a local thing. we are right, and osama is wrong. cos he fervently believes he is right, he will try to sow his madness in other minds, but he is evil. maybe he doesnt even know it. in fact, he probably doesnt.
Perhaps the US voters had a similar problem to the one we'll face next year...
...we don't like the incumbent, but the opposition has as much character as a house brick.
We'll probably end up with Blair again, due to 'the creature of the night' and his charisma bypass.
David
so, from a communists or arab terrorsist point of view, why isnt capitalism wrong?
example
bush and kerry come from VERY rich favoured backgrounds.
like one is married to a heinz heiress, and the other's dad was a rich oil baron and president.
These are the people that are elected to represent and change the lives of trailer park '8 mile' types.
hmmmm.
from a commie point of view, things are supposed to be equal.
the american situation isnt exactly equal that the few rich control and represent the poor.
Im not a commie btw. Im just trying to present a view of how the world sees things from different sides.
take mandela.
he was a terrorist. advovcated violence against whites. now hes everyones favourite grandad, hero type. Depends on where you aree coming from at the
time really doesnt it?
some of ireland thinks adams and mcginness are hero's the other half think murderers.
atb
steve
blair will walk it.
regardless of what hes does.
he could campaign in a panda suit and call himself woofles and he'd still win.
there is no effective opposition. Hes gotta fcuk up big time to lose methinks......
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Perhaps the US voters had a similar problem to the one we'll face next year...
...we don't like the incumbent, but the opposition has as much character as a house brick.
We'll probably end up with Blair again, due to 'the creature of the night' and his charisma bypass.
David
Someone was rambling on in the staffroom today at school about it was awful that Bush was about to win so I asked her what the difference was.
No idea at all. Just a typically trendy position to adopt.
I don't know either so I kept my mouth shut.
As a nation, or even the broader sense a 'Christendom', we're fabulously arrogant about the superiority of our political systems.
We're raised that way. Who's to say it's any better than the one's opposed by Bin Liner and his mates?
I don't believe that the 'terror' threat they hold is particularly large but since we lost the commies, we've been short of a
sinister looking bogey man.
Blair will walk it. He's got no opposition.
do you wear a tweedy jacket with patches on the arms?
atb
steve
what the hell happened to osama anyway? did he waft away into the ether?
is anyone chasing him anymore or has he sort of got off?
i've never really got into politics on a global level,but there have been some interesting twists recently.
tom
ps i think i spotted him wandering through dewsbury town centre the other day, although theres plenty of lookalikes.
i heard he was involved in a scuffle and lost an arm. its pretty bad for him, but its even worse for the body doubles
As of Nov. 1:
(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head
of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden
said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of
attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to
make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some
benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had direct
threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue."
"We chose the most newsworthy parts of the address and aired them. The rest was used in lower thirds in graphics format," said one
official.
U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed that the transcript made public Monday by Al-Jazeera was a complete one.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the
attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said.
"As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.
"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that
anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will
be convinced.
"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."
As for President Bush's Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to
private interests over the public interests of America.
"So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his
future," bin Laden said.
U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda
leader in nearly three years.
BTW: I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I tend to be more conservative (Republican) for the most part, but I voted Kerry, I have my reasons,
and I read up and studied the candidates like I was studying for final exams. After I was done, I had no question in my mind that if every single
other American had done their research like I had, they would vote the same way. Well, they obviously didn't know what I knew, there's no
point in whining about it now, it's over and we have to see 4 more years of him.
Been having great roiling debates with my best friend, a republican in Boston of all places, over all matters electoral and otherwise political.
His take on the "divisiveness" plaguing the US at the moment is a novel one. It goes as follows...
The Right is pissed because the intellectual Left has, for the past umpteen years treated Southerners and the religious Right like a bunch of
backward hicks due to differing opinions and beliefs both religious and socio-political. Backlash being the inevitable result.
I sort of like it -- it's neat and compact and all that, but...
It, unfortunately, leaves little room for solutions.
And the disagreements, starting with evolution, progressing through civil liberties, and working their way toward stem cell research are hardly
the kind if minor details one can "agree to disagree" on.
My personal pet peeve in all this is the bizarre use of fear by the republicans (though the dems didn't do enough to ratchet it down
IMHO).
About 35,000 Americans perish due to complications from influenza each year, roughly 43,000 in auto accidents, about 5,000 have been victims of
terrorism in the past ten years.
Before you get too upset, I'm not making light of 9/11 or the Madrid bombing -- Bin Ladin and his ilk need to be decommisioned but the
republicans are treating terrorism like a free pass to the cookie jar.
Roll back privacy rights and civil liberties to the stone age? Invade an unrelated country for personal enrichment, deceive the the world and
your own people about your ridiculously transparent motives? Give huge tax breaks to the richest 2% of your population while racking up record
deficits and using the other 98%'s kids as cannon fodder in previously mentioned war of personal enrichment?
It's bloody Orwellian IMHO...
It's late, I'm ranting and I honestly don't have a solution (I'm not a massive fan of Kerry -- give me McCain anyday) so
I'll shut up now.
It is all bloody mind boggling to this casual observer though.
Cheers, Ted
When terrorists stop their jihad against the west then we will lay down our arms and the world will coexist peacefully again. The radical muslims are
against everything that the west symbolizes and they won't stop their jihad just because we stop fighting the war. You are just silly to believe
that.
This war was brought to 'US'
--------------------------------------------------------
It is the stated goal of Al-Qaida to remove the invaders from the holy lands of Arabia. They want the withdrawl of non Islamic people from the holy
land of Saudi as this contains the two most holy places to Islam ( Mecca, the great prophet Mohamed's birth place and his final resting place of
Medina ) as the great prophet had one said only one religion can be studied in the holy land.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait Usama Bin Laden offered his help as a senior war lord in the mujahedeen to his adoptive family ( the royal family of Saudi
adpoted the enire Bin Laden family after the death of their father Mohamed Awad Bin Laden as a way of thanking him for all the hard work building
Saudi's infrastructure), to remove the agressor. This offer was turned down and they went to their friend and business partner George Bush to
remove Saddam. They have never left the holy land since.
Al-Qaida evolved from the mujahedeen, A militia force the CIA helped to create and train. Their goal was to expel the none believers (russians) from
the holy land .They were financed by the Afghan drug trade which was set up by the Americans to turn Russian soldiers based there into heroin addicts.
This Heroin is now finding its way onto the streets of the western world.
All the terror attacks around the world in the name of Al-Qaida have been on nations involved in the occupation of the Arab home lands.
So in short hand The USA hacked off a terroist who they helped create and train in covert hit and run tactics against invaders, by invading his
country. They are now appalled at the use of hit and run terror tactics against them.
So plase dont try to tell me that you were pulled into it.
Nicely put Brooky
very well put Brooky
i concur
tom
my last word on the subject ......... YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW !!
Steve, from your post I get the impression that you have always lived in the USA, am I wrong?
The USA may or may not be a pillar of democracy but it's not a Pillar of freedom, especially just now. As Benjamin Franklin said, "People
who would give up their freedom for security diserve neither"
Plus the USA have been involved (in some way or another) in every conflict that has happened and is happening in the world since I can remember, see
here:
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
On the left, click on "Watches"->"Regional and Country Watches".
The USA actually needs to continue selling weapons to Israel and stuff like that in order for you to be able to build your car. We ALL need that the
USA continues doing this stuff in order to live our lifes, I need that the USA continues doing this stuff in order to spend my life comfortably,
driving my nice kit car and playing in bands, which is what I enjoy doing with my SPARE TIME, a great thing to have. But let's not talk about
freedom.
My English is so limiting when it comes to explain my views.
Cheers,
Alex
[Edited on 4/11/04 by Alez]
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
my last word on the subject ......... YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW !!
quote:
Blaming the US for inciting 9/11 is ridiculous.
Cheers, Ted
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
quote:
Blaming the US for inciting 9/11 is ridiculous.
Cheers, Ted
I think you'll find an AWFUL lot of people will disagree with you there .......
People to go to those lengths without some serious provocation - even if they are fanatical lunatics.
[Edited on 4/11/04 by Jasper]
quote:
Originally posted by sgraber
Listen, it's obvious that we will have to agree to disagree. I would certainly hope that our disagreement does not incite you to lay a pipe bomb in my childrens school, because a rational human would not stoop to that level.
quote:
Originally posted by blueshift
obviously the situation is completely different.. right?
Well, yes there sort of is a difference.
Nobody wants their country invaded but if you let terrorists train, live, preach and operate out of your country you have to expect consequences.
In Afghanistan retaliation against the Taliban and Al Quaeda was both warranted and necessary. In fact they should have run the scum down completely
before they saw something shiney a couple of countries over and got distracted.
Not going to take on the Iraq arguement -- I still need convincing on the US' motivation & timing there.
But, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, they are a bunch of Homicidal F*ckheads. Hussein, Bin Ladin et al.
You wouldn't accuse the UK of inciting the IRA's London bombing campaign of a few years back, would you?
Cheers, Ted
quote:
Originally posted by andkilde
You wouldn't accuse the UK of inciting the IRA's London bombing campaign of a few years back, would you?
Cheers, Ted
MMM the ireland thing used in the same context. I dont think the british goverment trained and encouraged the IRA to fiight invaders before we
invaded?
quote:
And as far as Terrorism is concerned. IMHO their agenda is flawed and the mechanisms that they use to foment change are flawed
quote:
Originally posted by andkilde
You wouldn't accuse the UK of inciting the IRA's London bombing campaign of a few years back, would you?
Cheers, Ted
quote:
Originally posted by Brooky
so what is sound policy ? to mass an army against the mandates of the united nation, occupy the country illegally and control the "democratic" government ?
Jasper,brooky and blueshift you have taken the words right out of my mouth.
The saddest thing of it all is that innocent people are getting killed all thru dogma and ignorance, the thing most Americans (or thier government
anyway) cant seem to comprehend is that to an iraqi a palestinian an afgan a dead son/daughter/mother/father is still grieved over is still loved and
missed as would an american
One attack on America has bought a thousand times more grief to more families throughout the world than 9/11 ever did.
90% of Americans in most states dont even know whats happening in the county next but one to thiers let alone on the other side of the world, perhaps
if they did American politics wouldnt be the farce that it is.Perhaps its no surprise that it was in these states that Bush got most of his
support.
To the American government both now and in the past war and killing is OK as long as its a long way from them, and they cant still buy cheap gas and
hamburgers
Youve got to see where this has come from, its a bitter irony that the last Nazi's live in Israel (and 90% of thier goverments ministers by the
way are ex terrorists)and would have been long gone if it wasnt for the support of the good old USA , and that only way young intelligent Palestinians
feel that they can make thier point is by strapping a load of explosives to themselves and blowing themselves and some other poor kids up.
As for Bush winning, god help us all.
Gets off soapbox and goes and gets pi$$ed.
Cheers,
Bob
[Edited on 4/11/04 by splitrivet]
quote:
Originally posted by sgraber
quote:That is so friggin ridiculous it doesn't even rate discussion.
obviously the situation is completely different.. right?
I shake my head in amazement and will simply have to walk away from this conversation.
quote:
I hope we all are still friends even though we feel so differently (and strongly) about our perceptions of the world around us. Maybe someday we will find common ground.
Until then I hope that we can still build cars together?
It was interesting that in his concession speech, John Kerry urged Bush to stay the course in Iraq. This indicated to me that not much would be
different in Iraq were he to be elected.
I'm disappointed that the Iraq invasion did not uncover stockpiles of WMDs, but instead "only" about a half million tons of
conventional weapons. Reports that more advanced weapons were moved to Syria prior to the invasion are plausible, IMO, because of Saddam's use
of portable weaponry and laboratories and the long period of time that elapsed prior to the invasion.
Whether Osama was linked to Saddam is immaterial to me. What matters is that Saddam was not complying with the terms reached at the end of the first
Gulf War, concerning weapons inspections. Saddam challenged the US to this war, if anyone can remember, with his defiance of the treaty.
This election was mostly about liberal versus conservative values. Kerry was really unable to declare a platform, because his party is comprised of a
mishmash of intellectual elites (i.e., Marxists) and various disaffected parties who are looking for favors from government. Making a strong stand in
any area would have alienated large sections of his constituency, so he didn't. The only thing they all agreed to was that government needed to
have more, spend more, and do more. This is anathema to most working Americans, who mainly want the government to stay the hell of our backs and to
stick to its responsibilities according to our Constitution. We have had enough social engineering over the past forty years to last us a while,
thank you.
I suppose it is possible that Bush is the cynical, manipulative pawn of mega-corporations that Jasper, et al, make him out to be. No offense taken,
guys, because I've donned the tinfoil hat now and again myself. I have chosen to take the man at face value, and I hope that his accomplishments
will show him to have been the real deal.
Of course, his detractors will never be satisfied. If a tyrant who controls his people through hatred of the West goes down and is replaced with a
more congenial government, we are deemed to have "bought it". And maybe we did, with our money and with our blood. If so, is that so
bad?
Pete
Almost forgot to mention, the "Palestinian" Arabs already have a state. It's called JORDAN.
A little history lesson
Also, in 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat the frigging moon and it was not enough. The panty-wearing dipsh*t wanted the whole enchilada!
Read about it here
I have great sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs. Their leaders have screwed them royally.
Pete
quote:
Originally posted by sgraber
Alez, I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, Spent a year living in the UK, 6 months in Spain. I have also lived in Bulgaria for a period and I have travelled extensively around the world. The place I prefer the most is the United States.
quote:
Originally posted by pbura
I'm disappointed that the Iraq invasion did not uncover stockpiles of WMDs, but instead "only" about a half million tons of conventional weapons. Reports that more advanced weapons were moved to Syria prior to the invasion are plausible, IMO, because of Saddam's use of portable weaponry and laboratories and the long period of time that elapsed prior to the invasion.
Pete
jasper , brooky well said .............. like i said ..... YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW ......... and for all the USA's strength you still can't catch or kill a man with just a rifle living in a cave .
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
Unless saddam moved those weapons across the desert on his own, lots of people in the iraqui military would know where they went. This would have come out in 'questioning' or people would have come for a reward with the info.
America has more than 1,000s of tons of weapons. It has a shyte load of them that could knock the dust of this world into a different orbit
why? for protection against russia. And so russia had / has a shyte load too.
So, why cant Iraq follow this philosophy? A few 100,000's of conventional weapons is nothing compared to what America has as a friendly peace keeping world policeman.
thats a pretty hefty night stick.
atb
steve
Pete
I know this is going back a bit, but didnt the USA 'annexe' California, new mexico, etc, from the spanish / mexicans?
You can shoot me down if my facts arent correct. (which they may not be!)
If you go back a 100 years, the brits had to reduce the size of their navy, and the USA increase theirs to keep equality.
I think most brits would be able to see the 'days of empire' as us sticking ourselves where we shouldnt be.
It will be intersting to see what happens to the USA view in 100 years time.
I saw a documentary on discovery a year or so ago. It told of how the USA gained control in the pacific from the spanish. Supposedly an american ship
was bombed in the philipines. America reacted by invading the area and whapping the spanish.
It was subsequently suspected that it was an accident in the magazine that caused the ship to blow, and that the spanish were not considering an
attack.
possibly familiar?
We will never know if Iraq would have been a problem if left alone. Im kinda undecided cum supportive. Im glad its not my decision. Then, we dont know
if attacking Iraq is going to force the situation a lot more. Ther emay be people out for revenge now that want to get hold of a nuke even more than
they did before. Perhaps a bargain basement ex cold war ruskie bomb. I bet Osama has money to buy one....
atb
steve
ps
life insie falluja
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3986085.stm
Very, very good points, Steve, about two episodes in US history that are less than laudable. The Mexican-American War was based purely on greed. No
argument there.
The Spanish-American conflict was a bit more altruistic, in that the American public was sympathetic with Cuban revolutionaries, but beyond that had
no axe to grind and little to gain from fighting the Spanish over it.
I would categorize the first event as shady, and the second as misguided. I'll also throw the treatment of native Americans into the shady
category.
We've all had our moments, haven't we? Reflecting on the history of nations, transitions are almost always messy.
While I'm in support of reprisals against Saddam, I agree that this is an awkward stage in light of the power vacuum that exists in Iraq now, but
to turn heel on Iraq now would be cruel, IMO. I'm hoping that some Iraqi patriots who are willing to play ball in the modern world step forward,
and soon. The hopeful thing about Iraq, as compared to Afghanistan, is that they have a good source of national income that can be used to finance an
orderly society. Karzai in Afghanistan seems a very good man, but he has a long row to hoe.
Interesting discussion. Incidentally, I think the truth about these matters no doubt lies somewhere between the extremes of argument.
Pete
I have just heard some bad news for us today:
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE
To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to be able to select a suitable President of the USA and thus to
govern yourselves in a fair manner (fair to the rest of us that is), we
hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective
today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which
she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony
Blair, MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that
there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America
without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be
disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine
whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following
Rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be
amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you
should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary".
Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as
"like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. Look up "interspersed".
2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on
your behalf.
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents.It
really isn't that hard.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the
good guys.
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The
Queen",but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you
to get confused and give up half way through.
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of
football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good
game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your
borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football.
You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play
proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the
girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time,
be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but
does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing
full Kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at
least a US rugby sevens side by 2008.
7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if
they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that
there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky.
The Russians have never been the bad guys.
8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecision
Day".
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your
own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we
mean.
10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
Excellent discussion and sharing of views. I decided to read and learn rather than display my lack of knowledge on many of the issues raised here. I
have been reading everyones posts with interest and taken a few things on board.
Overall I would concur with the UK feelings that have been put forward here. However it has been very worhtwhile hearing the views of those in the
US.
I'm still of the opinion that the reasons we (US & UK) are at war in the middle east are not the ones our leaders would have us believe. I
also still feel that GWB has a lot to answer for as does TB, but I have come to appreciate that it probably would not have been very different with
anyone else in the hot seats.
Finally, as posted several times already, I hope we can all still build cars and share views and experiences on LCB. Afterall this is probably the
most international enviromnment most of us regularly experience.
Nick205
quote:.......
Originally posted by turbo time
I have just heard some bad news for us today:
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE