Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Professor Frink]

If you don't think that is destablizing.  Have a second thought.  There are many nations that saw the invasion of Iraq as being something more scary than we've ever experienced before. 

[...] (What does this say about what could be next on the adjenda... where will his gaze fall next)... Doesn't this possibility make you shudder?

That was entirely the goal. Bush has been completely up-front about this: What else could "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." mean? It's supposed to be scary--it's supposed to be destabilizing. Stability was resulting in an escalating series of attacks against the US and her allies. The US can start playing nice again once its half-dozen or so remaining enemies are either destroyed or scared into submission (Qadhafi's a smart one; he got the message right fast, although he was already leaning that way before all this went down)

How is it that Bush could change the world's opinion of his country in less than a year from Universal sympathy for your losses in that terrible disaster at the WTC into univeral condemnation for actions that were unprecidented and with out apparent substance.

Everybody loves a victim. Once it was clear that America wasn't going to forget about it or wallow in self-pity or blame itself for provoking the attacks somehow, that wore off. It was shallow sympathy anyway, aside from certain countries and people who are still standing with us (you know who you are).

[Life]

Thank you Nystul that was a very enlightning description of what needs to happen and what may happen in your elections. I feel much more informed about the permutations that are possible.

Professor Frink thanks for you thoughts too. I rest my case you have made it abundently clear that people like Bush are not what the world needs.... it may well be what the American people think the world needs.

Life

[Sourskunk]

I'm not sure poking points of how badly Europe has handled things changes one wit the way that the present U.S. government has handled things. Nor do I want to one moment suggest that there is anything great about Europe or their intentions in the world.

The reason Occhi does that is to express why we have little to no regard for foreign opinions on our candidates or policies at large. We look across the pond to see economic inferiority and incapability to deal with serious issues so the criticism might as well come from Big Bird than Jacques Chirac. We're familiar with handling our own affairs despite European criticism so the "how can anyone like Bush" comments are heard as nothing more than selfish, biased noise.

However one could I believe equally argue that there are many many examples of where and how the U.S. has completely bungled the operation terribly or choose not to use a velvet glove but a massive hammer too.

Perhaps. But by in large, Americans focus on results and when the velvet glove looks to be preventing results, we have historically had little problem dispensing with it. Whether rightly or wrongly, Americans have the perception that Europeans are all talk, no walk. We're little talk, all walk. It's who we are and I have no intention in apologizing for it.

The rest of the world should not care who is the next U.S. president but sadly it matters perhaps more than you or I would like. (Too much power is well... just too much for us lowly humans to handle)

I apologize in advance if I misunderstand what you are saying. I understand why the world watches our elections and worries about them and no one really has a problem with that. Nor do we mind that you discuss it amongst yourselves. We personally just don't care to hear about it.

As for the statement that we have too much power to handle, I would be insulted if I didn't know that it is rooted in a general misunderstanding of the US and European historical fear of superpowers. Given the relationship you've had with them in the past, usually leaving you bleeding, I respect the fear. However, if you were right, if the power was too much to handle, and we surely have it currently, why haven't we used it to the extent superpowers have in the past? To use the popular Iraq myth, we have routine oil shortages and rises in gas prices every summer due to consumption and OPEC production. During these times, we've had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq. If we were the superpowers of old, we could have claimed "victory", seized the oil, and solved the problem. But we haven't and wouldn't. I don't expect you to understand why other than this explaination:

We are Americans, proud and free.

When on the surface it appears that the U.S. has unilaterally decided the fate of a soverign state (regardless of who is there or incharge) what is there to suggest that spurious and possible fake facts can be made up to make a strong case for the U.S. from just invading everyone they feel needs to be invaded.  If you don't think that is destablizing.  Have a second thought.  There are many nations that saw the invasion of Iraq as being something more scary than we've ever experienced before. 

If either of our candidates has any political sense, we'll be debating this heavily and rightfully so. So rest assured, we're going to have a second thought and a third, fourth, and fifth. It's what we do :).

As for nations being scared of our invasion of Iraq, may I ask which nations? Germany and France does not a world make. This is going to be a rude question but I shall ask anyway. When haven't these nations been viscerally scared? I recall the build-up to the Afghan war hearing talks of "quagmire" and "instability" and so do many of my countrymen. As Libya has shown, other countries becoming scared usually is a boon for us, not a bane.

How is it that Bush could change the world's opinion of his country in less than a year from Universal sympathy for your losses in that terrible disaster at the WTC into univeral condemnation for actions that were unprecidented and with out apparent substance.

That the world never had it. Losing support is understandable, sympathy, if honestly felt, would have been impossible.

By the way, do you have any empirical data for these "universal" comments? I suspect you're experiencing a large case of myopia by the area you live in and the circle you speak with.

(What does this say about what could be next on the adjenda... where will his gaze fall next)... Doesn't this possibility make you shudder?

It makes me comforted. While we gaze, our enemies can not gaze back. Lybia, Iran, North Korea to name a few along with dissidents in various countries that the leaders there are incapable or unwilling to control.

What would make me shudder is when other countries stop.

I'd say that you may want to consider seriously about where you want your country to go in the future and looked at in the history books.

Answer me honestly, please. How did we look in those books before Iraq? In Hiroshima? Cold War? Korea? Vietnam? 90's?

I've been quite rightly shown some of the correct and good things that the U.S. has done for the world.  Shouldn't that continue?  Wouldn't choosing an different person to lead your country give you momentum to changing what appears a direction of distruction to one of building again?

I wasn't aware the good Americans have caused had stopped.

Who is responsible for bettering trade across the world by exporting goods most countries can't make and importing goods that most countries desperatly need to sell?

Who has been trying to reduce AIDS in Africa? Who helped earthquake victims in Bam, Iran? Who's trying to rebuild and free Afghanistan and Iraq? Who is responsible for crippling and seeking to destroy the organization that has declared open war on civilians of not just the United States but Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Kuwait, Italy, Spain, Australia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Red Cross, and even the vaunted United Nations, among billions more that would be facing inevitable annhilation should the United States with the *support* of many of the nations I just listed choose not to act?

The question isn't why aren't Americans shuddering. The question is "Why did you stop?"

[Life]

Very interesting. I am learning a lot.

All I can say is wow!

Life

Btw I do not live in Europe... just in case anyone was thinking that was the case. I just don't live in the United States. Which is a wonderful and wonderous country.

Life

[Sourskunk]

Glad to help :). Sorry for focusing on Europe so much.

That said, we do have people in this country that are concerned about how other countries are concerned about us. I don't agree with them but that's the fun.

[Vandiablo]

How lame that you continue to ride along on the "__________'s all America's/Bush's" fault bandwagon. Just fill in the blank on what it is that's bugging you.

American here. That's my American flag on the front porch, lit up and waving 24/7.

I don't appreciate you lumping Bush and America together like that. To me, this administration is the most anti-American since... hmmm, ever. Okay, maybe back to WWII, during the internment (sp?) of many Americans only because of their descent.

To me, America is: the Constitution. And I think that currently the biggest threat to the Constitution is: John Ashcroft, for his work against the requirement for warrants. This is a real threat to what America is. As for Bush, he is merely a vandal, wanting to throw on an amendment sanctifying what is basically religious dogma.

But I'll be voting Democratic this year, yet again. Why? Because the Republicans are still giving the modern-day robber barons much more than they need, at the expense of both working class (me, albeit white-collar) and the natural areas that belong to all Americans. I am insulted that he thinks he can buy my vote with an increased refund. Yeah, I can use that extra thou, but I know damn well that I'll be paying that money soon enough, paying for the consequences of a deficit-crazy government. We're already paying, because foreign opinions DO matter-- trade, currency, treaties. You say Bush was focused on internal issues before 9/11, but I recall he had already "unsigned" at least one treaty before then. Will we need to renegotiate all our treaties every time we get a new president? I guess we're "unsigning" the Constitution now. I also remember that pre-9/11 the Bushies had the attitude that it was a privilege for any country to be able to meet with him. Can you get any more arrogant?

But, that's not my core issue. In my state, we have two National Forests that hold what little undeveloped wilderness we have left. The Bush administration has repealed the executive order (by Clinton) that would not have created new roads in these areas. Under the new e.o. rule, not only will we have increased logging (read: deforestation and devastation due to lack of concern for long-term effects) but we'll have 4-wheeling there too. We have plenty of areas to go 4W'ing; we don't need it there. Now, this is just one rule, and one state-- multiply by all the "pro-business", meaning anti-preservation, policies and by all the states and territories, and you can see that I consider this administration to be a Unnatural Catastrophe, unfortunately not the first (Remember Ronnie saying that trees caused pollution?) but so far the greatest.

This administration is short-sighted in at least three major areas-- financial, environmental, and diplomatic. It is willing to run these three areas into the ground for the monetary gain of its most powerful backers.

And to answer the original question, THAT is what I hear about when I've heard Kerry speak. Just being anti-Bush is enough. In fact, it's plenty.

-V

P.S. And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the Republican party... example they who whined about "draft dodgers" in 1992 and 1996 are supporting someone whose daddy kept him out of danger, getting him a job he often didn't show up for but still drew pay and benefits from... and what about they who scoffed about "not inhaling" after demanding knowledge about drug use? supporting someone who did not only marijuana but some of the harder stuff-- and wasn't there drunk driving in there? Just minor character flaws, eh, when he's gonna save your corporation a few million by loosening environmental requirements...

[eppie]

First I want to state (again) that I don't hate america. On several other threads I wrote this before, I have always been fasinated by the US, and the US-life, and chances are that I will live in the US for a year. (next year) Anyway I hope everybody sees that this thread is not about a europe-US fight, it is about Kerry. Okay I don't know a lot about this guy, but I have never discovered dutch television to be leftish and anti Bush, so I guess what they say, that he is left of the middle is true, and I like that.

The reply about the swear-words I did not understand, Sir die alot: do you mean that Kerry swears in public or something?. Well I could not care less about that if it is true, I remember Bush's slip during that conference where he called some guy form the press a ***** it would be strange if that is the only time in his life that he used LL forbidden words. I think the time an election is focussing on those issues, you know it is the wrong way.

Scandals (that I know of): Nixon had watergate, clinton had Monica-gate, is it just me or is the first one a tad more severe?. Disrupting a whole country for a year just to accuse somebody form having sex with an intern? That is something his wife should have done not the republican party.

Than I don't like the lies that are used: wasn't it Cheney who was in charge of making a fake moon-landing movie in the case the real-one failed? And the Gulf war 1 thing, that they said that Iraki soldiers threw babies form their couveuses (I don't know if this is the right word, I mean those boxes with oxygen where they put small babies in) and let them die on the ground. Where the only witness turned out to be the daughter of the kuwaiti consul in Washington.
Normally I don't like examples, but these things formed partly my opinion of the republican party. Another thing is their environmental policy, which is disastrous. That Bush might have used drugs or that his daughters get drunk all the time, I don't care about, it's their life.

As last point: some of you indicated that you did not care how europe thinks about the US. I think that is one of the most terrible things that can happen in world politics. We should keep correcting eachother and learning from eachother. (I want to see what Bush is going to do when he has to build up his completely ruined economy, he must know that giving tax back to people must end some time). :D

Well let us see through all the propaganda machines and keep our heads clear for some more nice discussions.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Everyone else has pretty much debated every one of your points pretty well except this one.

When on the surface it appears that the U.S. has unilaterally decided the fate of a soverign state

You and I both know a word like "unilaterally" is not in our typical dialog so someone somewhere gave this idea to you. Try thinking back where and you can probably find where your bias against Bush came from, because what people really mean when they say "unilaterally" is not the UN, France, or Germany. Who are the current coalition members?

Second Iraq point. The vast majority of Iraqis love us being there. No I'm not working off some poll or what some stupid blonde on the news said. I'm working off of what a US marine came back and said. A good friend of a friend (you've met Jason online, his friend) went to Iraq. He came back on leave, even though he didn't want to! Yeah he got shot at, he is a marine he shoots back! But he also would spend time reading to Iraqi childeren who don't understand a word he says but do know the words "Bush good Saddam donkey." (yes that is a direct quote) If you want a reason for Iraq: this is a "war on terror." I don't think you would argue whether Saddam supported terror. As far as the war on terror goes we have now gone in and kicked the 2 top dogs asses', and the people who lived there are better off for it. Honestly the only valid point on Iraq is "where are the WMD?"

Another point. The American media by and large hate Bush. Many belive that due to the way our presedential elections work he is no the valid presidant ("the selected not elected" is a favorite chant). Their reports and interviews often reflect this. Now if our media thinks this way how do you think international media reacts?

[Occhidiangela]

Than I don't like the lies that are used: wasn't it Cheney who was in charge of making a fake moon-landing movie in the case the real-one failed?

That is an old conspiracy theory that has little or nothing to do with VP Cheney. It was the subject of a Hollywood film called "Capricorn 1" starring James Brolin and OJ Simpson.

Hollywood is not a place that makes documentaries. It makes films for entertainment. They even award "documentary" film makers who can't get their facts right or who put out right falsehoods on "documentary" films. (Mr Moore.)

JFK was not a documentary.
Tombstone was not a documentary
Braveheart was not a documentary.
Nixon was not a documentary
The Passion of the Christ was not a documentary.
The Longest Day was not a documentary.
Das Boot (not a Hollywood film, but a very good film nonetheless) was not a documentary.

They were movies, stories put on film, some with threads of history interwoven into their fiction, but stories nonetheless.

Capricorn 1 was more along the lines of "Pulp Fiction." Pure fiction. :D

[kandrathe]

Than I don't like the lies that are used: wasn't it Cheney who was in charge of making a fake moon-landing movie in the case the real-one failed? And the Gulf war 1 thing, that they said that Iraki soldiers threw babies form their couveuses (I don't know if this is the right word, I mean those boxes with oxygen where they put small babies in) and let them die on the ground. Where the only witness turned out to be the daughter of the kuwaiti consul in Washington.

Gads. Don't swallow all the bait you are tossed.

If you believe in moon landing fake conspiracy theories, and baby killing US soldiers, then trying to reason is beyond hope.

As for the "11:59" Clinton executive orders, if they were so darned important then why didn't Mr. Clinton sign them into law on the first day of his Presidency rather than the last day?

I want to see what Bush is going to do when he has to build up his completely ruined economy, he must know that giving tax back to people must end some time.

Blah, Blah, Blah... "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy", Blah, Blah, Blah... We are going to here that tired old refrain for at least another 7 months, but it has become like some kind of democrat mantra. Where was the economy prior to 9/11/2001? Slipping into recession. Where was the economy in the spring and summer of 2001? Slipping into recession. When did the "tech bubble" burst? What happened in the summer and fall of 2001 was not anything to do with Bush. Where was the Clinton administration during the prior 4 years in investigating all the accounting shenanigans?

Republican or Democrat, we have one kind of politics and politician in our country. For the rich and looking out for themselves. That is our problem. Democrats to me are dually duplicitous in that they want you to believe they are looking out for the middle class and poor. There is enough wealth in this country (hell, in congress itself) that if they wanted to remove poverty they could do it in one month. Should the government take away my hard earned money for handouts? Sure for the incapacitated. Is that what they are doing? Not by a long shot.

[kandrathe]

Frankly, this Bush presidency is reminding me more of the Reagan years, at least in showing some backbone. Bush is no Reagan when it comes to charisma, personality or his speeches. But, he does the right thing for the US (as he defines it) regardless of what the rest of the world may think, or Zagby, or any darn opinion poll. Nothing drove me more nuts than in prior administrations, when the politicians would wait for the public opinion polls to complete before taking a stand on the issue. No spine, no opinion other than the one that would get them re-elected.

[eppie]

Republican or Democrat, we have one kind of politics and politician in our country. For the rich and looking out for themselves. That is our problem. Democrats to me are dually duplicitous in that they want you to believe they are looking out for the middle class and poor. There is enough wealth in this country (hell, in congress itself) that if they wanted to remove poverty they could do it in one month. Should the government take away my hard earned money for handouts? Sure for the incapacitated. If that what they are doing? Not by a long shot.

Well I agree with that. And I admit that the US is not the only country which suffers from this, also in europe we have our problems. And guess what as a (small) shareholder I feel partly responsible. :D
Anyhew I always feel I have to do something against these things, but I don't know what.

O and Occhie, I only watch Woody Harrelson movies, and everything he says is true! :P

[Bob]

Are you getting confused with Kinsey? or am I the one getting confused?

-Bob

[Kevin]

I personally know a bunch of people in Iraq. My Dad's former Guard unit (he was the full time Readiness NCO until 2001) from the town I was born and raised and lived 18 years in, is currently over there. I know quite a few members. About once every 6 weeks they will get to send e-mail back or phone someone. The company commander sends e-mail back on a 3-5 week basis as well with overviews and other information.

All of these e-mails indicate that the vast majority of the Iraqis are happy we are there, or else the vast majority of Iraqi's are very good actors. I've read stories of soldiers being invited into Iraqi's homes for discussions on the local situations or to just have a cup of tea.

I've read sad first hand tails from the early days of the war of little children selling the dinari's for suviniers, standing at crossroads with wads of the now worthless currency, more than they had probably ever seen by a long shot, and selling it for American dollars. That doesn't happen anymore, because things are more stable and in some cases those children come back and thank the soldiers they see because their family has money and running water and working electricity that the never had under Saddam. The US got blasted about some of those basic food and water necessities, but they are providing it to areas that never had it.

The unit is a CSE company, lots of scrapers, graders and dozers. They build roads, dig trenches, build housing, whatever. The Iraqi people are constantly thanking them and working with them to build better living conditions for thousands of people.

The point is I agree that there really is more support for us there than is portrayed in most sources.


However, I still disagree with the methods that were used to start the war. I am not comfortable with John Ashcroft either (I have lived in Missouri for the last 10 years now so I have lots of experience with him), and will vote against Bush to get rid of him if nothing else. I don't really hate Bush or a lot of the results that he has produced, but the methodology on much of it does bother me a lot. Some of his supporting cast bothers me as well. I still believe the administration handled 9-11 and some other issues better than a Gore administartion would have, but I don't want to leave him in there for another 4 years. The means have to be judged as well when you are looking at the kind of power that is being wielded. They are important, even if the ends are good. I'm scared by the move that seems mostly political to get the Iraqi government in place by a specific date, and not based on conditions and readiness for it. Sooner is better, but too soon is worse. I think Kerry's plans on getting Iraq running on it's own and getting our troops out of there is a decent one as well. But I still need to look at it harder. I don't like Bush in the White House anymore.

Edit: Maybe I just want it both ways. I like the dedication and lack of waffling, I hated that about Clinton. But I still feel you can stand strong and do what you feel is right (which is very required sometimes) but be more diplomatic about it, and follow some better procedures with less fabrication or stretching than has been done. But maybe you can't have it both ways.

[Sourskunk]

Here's another point on the Iraqis. Following the latest set of bombings in Iraq that killed the 200+ Iraqis, do you recall what the response was by Iraqis to the US? I know it was portrayed in the press as massive protests...and it was in a way, but what was the message? It wasn't "Americans go home", it was "Americans, you aren't protecting us enough".

That was the most optimistic thing I had heard from Iraqis since this started.

[kandrathe]

The US Election boils down to devil you know versus the devil you don't know. For me, I look at the Kerry record and projecting that into Presidential policy makes me dubious as to how he would perform. Me, I'm libertarian, so Ashcroft is a sore spot, but to a point in that I trust the courts to eventually right any wrongs. Not so easy for citizens who are locked away without due process, but I think he has gotten some bad press as well. I heard a recent item about how Ashcroft has been at loggerheads with the Pentagon, trying to get the US citizens who have been labeled "enemy combatants" at Gitmo legal representation and due process. His perspective is that he does not want any criminal indictments reversed by the courts because these alleged criminals were denied due process. Of course, for non-citizens, they are at the mercy of the powers in charge. Ideally, it would be nice to show the other nations in the world that we really believe in the principles that we supposedly stand for, and so then give due process and legal representation to all the non-citizens we've locked up as well.

I don't like Bush in the White House anymore.

I'm not sure either. I'm not willing to blame him for 9/11 or its results. He hasn't been the stellar superstar President either (not that many are). I'm leaning currently towards voting against Kerry, and I suspect as the election draws nearer I will learn more about him. That might sway me more toward him, but we shall see. There is still alot of muck to rake before November. Kerry is no Clinton. Good in that he seems to have morality, but bad in that he seems more liberal than Edward Kennedy.

[Life]

Die I'm not sure I'm going to be able to answer your point all that well. However a few points of interest that lead me to feel this way about Bush are.

1. I read Michael Moore's book dude where's my country. Admittedly a book specifically made to bash bush. But I ask myself if there is one shread of information in that book that is significantly wrong.... I've not heard of any massive defemation law suit being brought against him? I have seen his research noted and the articles he has pulled information from to form his opinions. I wonder if you were slandered and put into such a serious light would you if you were the U.S. president stand back and not do anything or would you attempt to ensure your name was cleared?

2.According to statistics reported in more than one of your news groups and papers Bush has managed to put you all in the poor house for decades. Is this a point to be proud of the guy for? Or rather is it a point to attempt to get rid of the guy?

3.He and his administration virtually cut off all negotiation with the U.N. on invading Iraq and decided to go into Iraq with out U.N. security council unnaimous approval. I'm not talking about the French or the Germans. The Canadians, Russians and more than likely several more nations were unhappy at best at the decision. The cheif U.N. weapons inspector did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in the country and requested more time. I did not sense or believe that Bush and et al. were in the slight bit interested in what any one else thought they were in a big stick weilding mood and forget what the rest of the freaking world thinks about were going in. This smack of out right arrogance of the first degree. I'm the Sherrif and Judge and you done wrong you're going to be strung up. No trial no right of defense other than force of arms. I can't believe that anyone in the United States feels that was justified and right. Given your belief in the rule of Law. My god even the worse mass murder in your country gets those rights.

4. The guy refused to sign an agreement that virtually every country in the world signed on to regarding the world court. Ie. Its okay for the United States to assign a name to a man such as they have in Guantanamo and hold him with out trial and remove just about any other human right save food and water.... but its not alright for the same to happen to an American soldier or citzen that purpetrates those very same crimes in some other country. (amazing arrogance again? or just ... bah I can't get into it)

Bush just pushes all the wrong buttons for me. He's arrogant, he seems to be a puppet for others and seems bound and determined to follow and adgenda that may not be in the best interest of the American people.

And yes die I do form thoughts and opinions with out help from outside sources but when I speak them I know that I have looked into some of what I want to say. I believe that Bush is just wrong for the world let alone the people of the United States. (yes yes I know that everyone in the United States could give a rats behind for what I think but some day you will realize that all great empires do come down to nothing.... note the Egyptian, Roman, Greek, French, British as past examples of the great humbled.) The sooner the United States realizes that it is better to work in and with the world instead of acting like we are the big bad ass of the world don't mess with us approach the sooner the united states will see unprecidented benefits all around. Any wonder that they can't get a peace treaty firmly entrenced in any location that they've tried to do that recently?

Having said all that. I'm very impressed with the reports and comments from those of you in this thread who have friends family and aquaintances in Iraq doing a very necessary job. My hat's off to them and all they do. The task they do will be long and fraught with danger and I wish them all the best in the world and to come home safely. Perhaps someone other than Bush can ensure that would happen too.

(note unedited so if it rambles and is disjointed I appologize.)

Life

[kandrathe]

Much to chew on. Some has been chewed, digested, and passed on through, but this caught my eye.

...Bush has managed to put you all in the poor house for decades.

How's that?

[Sourskunk]

1. I read Michael Moore's book dude where's my country...I wonder if you were slandered and put into such a serious light would you if you were the U.S. president stand back and not do anything or would you attempt to ensure your name was cleared?

If you're a public figure, the threshold for proving libel (slander is spoken, libel is written) is much, much higher. Also, any time our public figures do sue, usually it has two negative effects. One, it calls greater attention to the person attacking you and helps their sales, two, it makes the suer look like a wimp that can't handle attack. That said, there are websites that challenge much of Moore's work. I don't pay attention to his work myself or his critics so who's right or wrong I'll leave to someone else.

2.According to statistics reported in more than one of your news groups and papers Bush has managed to put you all in the poor house for decades.

You're buying into hyperbole. I'm with Kandrathe, can you explain where you are getting this from?

3.He and his administration virtually cut off all negotiation with the U.N. on invading Iraq and decided to go into Iraq with out U.N. security council unnaimous approval...I did not sense or believe that Bush and et al. were in the slight bit interested in what any one else thought they were in a big stick weilding mood and forget what the rest of the freaking world thinks about were going in. This smack of out right arrogance of the first degree.

Can I just be honest?

Bush (and I) don't believe the UN or most of the countries' politicians opposing the war on any grounds were being impartial. They had self-interests they were serving. So were we. Geopolitics as usual.

4. The guy refused to sign an agreement that virtually every country in the world signed on to regarding the world court. Ie. Its okay for the United States to assign a name to a man such as they have in Guantanamo and hold him with out trial and remove just about any other human right save food and water.... but its not alright for the same to happen to an American soldier or citzen that purpetrates those very same crimes in some other country.

Now to be more honest. Following the war in Iraq, I believe Belgium tried to try our soldiers for war crimes just for the waging of standard war. You may not believe me but here's what would happen if we joined the ICC.

Other countries would use it as blackmail to try to prevent American action. "Don't invade Iraq or we'll prosecute your soldiers for war crimes and execute them". "Lower your trade barriers or we'll prosecute soldiers in Iraq for war crimes for showing pictures of Sadaam getting a medical exam or draping a US flag over a Hussein statue."

As certain as the rising of the sun. Or let me ask it this way. Do you think we committed war crimes in Iraq? Afghanistan?

note the Egyptian, Roman, Greek, French, British as past examples of the great humbled

What's the comparison you see between the United States and those former empires?

[Jester]

"If you believe in moon landing fake conspiracy theories, and baby killing US soldiers, then trying to reason is beyond hope."

While you did qualify it with an "if", it does kind of imply that Eppie said all of it. He only said half of it. The other half was not US soldiers killing babies, but rather a hoax, perpetrated by toadying Kuwaitis, about Iraqi soldiers killing babies. Since that has been verified to be nothing but propaganda, I would hope that it's cleared of the conspiracy charge. Indeed, even with the "moon landing" conspiracy charge, he didn't say it never happened, just that they had a backup plan in case it didn't. The truth of that, I don't know, and I don't think you do either.

Eppie also did not say anything about eleventh-hour changes Clinton made. Where did you pull that from? Also, the argument "Oh, yeah? Well, where were the Democrats?" doesn't really apply to people who don't live in the States.

Nor was he reciting the "tax cuts for the wealthy" criticism, valid as it may be. He was pointing out an obvious truth that the US government will find very oppressive soon: there are only so many taxes you can cut before your government goes broke, and only so many years your creditors will look the other way as you sink further into debt to finance your artificially low taxes. Even small governments need money.

His actual points were quite a bit stronger than the ones you contested. That's usually called a strawman.

Jester