Author Topic: What caused the International hate for Bush? (Read 1826 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #30 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:35:21 AM »

I think you oversetimate how much reagan was loved by the eurostudmuffin appeasement lapdogs, they were pretty much in lockstep opposed to his "agression" towards the USSR or upgrading our nucler capabilty in europe, star wars, fighing the communists in nicaragua and, and etc.. How little has changed...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:44:54 AM »

Hey Gscholz..

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:49:21 AM »

Its 4:48 AM and I'm never grumpy.

straffo · « **Reply #33 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:55:53 AM »

4:48 AM?
You would be better in front of your breakfast

Fishu · « **Reply #34 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:57:39 AM »

Bush has broke treaties, even the treaties which US itself required some other nations to participate in.
Then hes acted like a goof wondering whats up with the other world being so negative towards US after his mess ups and then he just worsens the situation by making more stupid decisions internationally to retaliate.

and so on and so on.. he must be the worst president with international relations that US has had.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #35 on:** March 24, 2003, 06:58:29 AM »

I donno I just cant fall asleep tonight... Im off from school this week so it doesnt matter much, not that it would matter if there was school - just matters less now.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #36 on:** March 24, 2003, 07:01:45 AM »

Reagan was fully intent on breaking ABM too.. I think bush terrifies you fools because you got used 8 years of a smooth talking but indecisive clinton - plus you all loved his adulterous relations.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #37 on:** March 24, 2003, 08:39:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So let me see bush is rsponsible for:

ww2
hitler
mussolini
the holocaust
joan peron
saving nazis
killing kennedy
the roswell coverup
bay of pigs disasr
covering up carter's sucess
vietnam war

If all this is true why arent you being arrested for posting this?

Please, plese seek help....

Main Entry: 1par·o·dy
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
Date: 1598
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule

Maybe it is time for a seperate politics / war forum...

"It's a joke, son.... I made a funny... Say somethin' boy, your lips are movin', but no sound is commin' out of your mouth!"

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #38 on:** March 24, 2003, 08:48:49 AM »

A steady diet of rotting weazel meat has done things to my mind...

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #39 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:10:09 AM »

This is a great pictrure Weazel - Im proud to a have President that threatens liberation.

Dowding · « **Reply #40 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:17:01 AM »

Quote

I think bush terrifies you fools because you got used 8 years of a smooth talking but indecisive clinton

Clinton was indecisive over the Balkans? About Israel-palestine? Northern Ireland?

I think he was very decisive in all those situations - and two out of three ain't bad. The part he played in help foster and encourage the NI Peace Process is rarely recognised. He didn't do bad at home, by all accounts, going on the strength of the economy.

Bush doesn't terrify me, I could easily kick his bellybutton in a 1v1. Bush scares me because of the people lurking in the background, with their own agendas. To me, he's like our Queen - a figurehead, ceremonial only. As a public speaker which, let's face it, is a major part of any world leader's job, he's hopeless.

Blair would make a great American president and you know it.

Also, let me make it clear I don't hate the guy. I'm really quite apathetic to American politics 99% of the time. Party politics is dull, no matter where it's taking place.

Before anybody whines about it being none of my business - check the title of the thread.

BTW - I couldn't care less where he chose to put his dick.

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:21:19 AM »

Clinton brought cruise missile diplomacy to its apex. I think that's where the "indecisiveness" shines through with respect to Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

As for the Balkans, I think you're overlooking the fact that he would not get involved in the UN action; so you Brits and French had to go in there without us. He didn't "get aboard" with you allies on that one did he?

Then, when the slaughter finally got so bad something had to be done, he takes the route of violating the NATO charter for the airwar there. That was decisive, I'll grant. But those who castigate Bush for not working through the UN were mostly silent then, eh?

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #42 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:21:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

Blair would make a great American president and you know it.

This country would eat up Blair - we'd love him and his "fancy-talk." Give him up you tea drinking studmuffins.

Dowding · « **Reply #43 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:35:34 AM »

Quote

He didn't "get aboard" with you allies on that one did he?

[/b]

Hey, Straffo could have done with that argument a few weeks ago.

Quote

But those who castigate Bush for not working through the UN were mostly silent then, eh?

So why do you think this is the case? Are we going to pull the left-wing conspiracy card, or will we leave that to grunherz and chums?

The truth is, I know that most British people don't know the difference between the Reps and Dems. Hell, they probably don't know who the leader of the opposition is in this country is. So why do many Americans on this board blindly subscribe to the view that Europeans have intimate knowledge of American politics?

I wish someone could answer that one for me.

Why has the support that Clinton (and America) largely enjoyed around the world, seemingly evaporated in the space of three short years? Bush even had the sympathy of the world after 9-11 - where did that go?

Quote

This country would eat up Blair...

Why are Americans so obsessed with oral sex in the corridors of power?

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** March 24, 2003, 09:44:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

Hey, Straffo could have done with that argument a few weeks ago.

[/b]

You're an intelligent man; you tell me... did Clinton help out when the British and French proposed action? If so, why did you have to go in without us?

This information isn't secret. It was there, well documented for Straffo. So why the red herring?

Do you really feel like Clinton was being "decisive" when you Brits went into the Balkans without us?

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

So why do you think this is the case? Are we going to pull the left-wing conspiracy card, or will we leave that to grunherz and chums?

[/b]

No conspiracy card necessary; there's plain old boring history to rely on. The US did not take a leadership role when the UN was discussing the Balkan "crisis". The US DID violate the NATO charter when Clinton finally decided to act.... after the British and French led an effort without the US that didn't work.

Yet you'll be hard pressed to find the "Bush ignored the UN" bashers on record for saying the same about Clinton, either then or now. But it's simply history. BOTH Presidents just bypassed the UN. History.