Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on October 03, 2004, 11:35:37 AM
-
Ok... watching the posts from the guys on this BB from other countries I am sometimes awed by their hate for Bush.... I mean they act like it is the most important thing in their lives or that... more accurately.... they have information that is being with held from us poor Americans.
I realize it is a very small sampling of the world here but with the exception of say curval and beetle (who are money guys) the rest of the posters seem violently anti Bush.
now... it it because they are flamingly socialist and liberal or.... is it because all the media that they are bombarded with on a daily basis is really that one sided?
my guess is that the media in their countries is strongly anti American and anti Bush. I believe this because these posters seem so.....
gulible and clueless... they seem to be secure in their thinking that if they just get the facts out that "everyone" knows about how evil Bush is then.... the Americans on this board will suddenly be enlightened and the election will swing the logical way. This kind of thinking can only be because of a HUGE support group in the media and "common knowledge".
It appears that ,barring something really dramatic.... Bush will win with a pretty handy electorial advantage. I think that the Americans here will take a victory by either candidate in (more or less) stride but... I think the foriegn posters will feel.... betrayed and it will simply increase their hate for the U.S.
that is my take on it.
lazs
-
Interesting points, I am always kind amazed after all the name calling and finger pointing the loser will shake hands with the winner and life goes on.
When Clinton won we survived as we survived when Reagan was in office, folks would do well to remember we in this country bicker and ***** a lot but we are family and move on after the politics wear off.
I do feel a more conservative trend in this country lately, I guess these things run in cycles, the number of collage age voters registering as Rep. is at a 25 year high FWIW.
I think the left swing in Europe is out of sync with the right swing here and the media does in fact have a lot to do with this.
-
Yea Laz, I'll just jot down Canadians on the list of people to hate in order to be a good dittohead. Man, this list is getting long.
But we aint crazy - the rest of the world is.
Oxydittos
-
The only thing your post needed to make it complete was to have it end with:
LOL LOL BUSH IN A LANDSLIDE!
This whole thing seems pretty upsetting to you, Lazs...
-
While I'll be somewhat relieved to see Bush win by a landslide as it will restore my faith in the American people it might be more interesting to see a closer race and to what extent the libs will go to in once again claiming a "stolen" election. Hmmmm, confidence in Americans or a good laugh? Guess I'll have to go with confidence.
-
Yea put your faith in the administration that failed to concieve of planes used as missiles, warlords who might let Al Queda slip away, or Iraqis who might change clothes and fight a guerilla war.
Twent twenty hind sight right? No. People have be screaming about the fact that 90% of container ships arriving in America are uninspected. An ya know what- they still are uninspected.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea put your faith in the administration that failed to concieve of planes used as missiles, warlords who might let Al Queda slip away, or Iraqis who might change clothes and fight a guerilla war.
Twent twenty hind sight right? No. People have be screaming about the fact that 90% of container ships arriving in America are uninspected. An ya know what- they still are uninspected.
Better than putting faith in the guy who voted to cut intelligence spending by 1.5 billion after 9/11. The same guy who sat for 45 minutes "unable to think" after the first plane hit the WTC.
Same guy that won't fund the troops, then says it's wrong to not give the troops everything they need. Real winner there Tweety.
Yeah, I trust Kerry will do everything he can to get to at least one intelligence breifing in a year.
And the cargo ships? How are we supposed to search all of them? Maybe they can sit at sea for 6 months until they are all searched.
What's Kerry's plan to search the cargo ships?
-
Hate who you like tweety... I don't advocate hating anyone based on country of origin tho.
seems there are some Americans on here that think the election is being stolen by..... by what? certainly you can't believe that the media here is biased toward Bush?
lazs
-
Lazs it's pretty simple, their government officials were being paid off, and after that it was just a matter of brainwashing the sheeple. And don't forget that their corporations have even more political influence than do ours, due to the hybrid socialist system of most of these countries.
Saddam Bought French, Russian UN Votes with Oil-For-Food Program
The London Times ^ | 10/03/04 | Robert Winnett
"A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.
The report was drawn up on behalf of the interim Iraqi government in preparation for a possible legal action against those who may have illicitly profited under Saddam. The Iraqis hired the London-based accountants KPMG and lawyers Freshfields to advise on future action.
It details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.
The UN oil-for-food scheme was set up in 1995 to allow Iraq to sell controlled amounts of oil to raise money for humanitarian supplies. However, the leaked report reveals Saddam systematically abused the scheme, using it to buy “political influence” throughout the world.
The former Iraqi regime was in effect free to “allocate” oil to whom it wished. Dozens of private individuals were given oil at knockdown prices. They were able to nominate recognised traders to buy the cheap oil from the Iraqi state oil firm and sell it for a personal profit.
The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”
The report also details how the regime benefited by arranging illegal “kickbacks” from oil sales.
From September 2000, it is said Saddam made $228m (£127m) from kickbacks deposited in accounts across the Middle East. The analysis details only the export of oil — not the import of humanitarian supplies, also alleged to have been riddled with corruption.
The report is an interim analysis and therefore studies only a sample of oil contracts.
The other main allegations included in the report are that:
Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.
A former senior aide to Putin allegedly organised the sale of almost 4m barrels of oil at a profit of more than £330,000. At the time the oil was sold, Russia was blocking the UN from supporting America’s demands to attack Iraq. According to the report, the aide, who worked in the presidential office, received 3.9m barrels of oil between May and December 2002.
In the two months during the run-up to the war, the Iraqi regime illegally sold about £30m of oil to a Jordanian-based company with the money deposited in a Jordanian bank account established by the regime. This is suspected to have been an attempt to secure safe passage for Saddam’s family in the event of war.
A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents. The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.
Saddam imposed a surcharge of between 10 cents and 50 cents (5p to 27p) for every barrel of oil allocated by his regime between September 2000 and the end of 2002. The money raised from this illegal surcharge was deposited in bank accounts in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. Iraqi embassies, including those in Moscow, Athens, Cairo, Rome, Vienna and Geneva, collected the money.
In total, 175 firms and individuals allegedly paid bribes to secure oil from the regime. According to the report: “The only way of enforcing the surcharge was through verbal personal guarantees and promises due to the sensitivity of the surcharge and the secrecy surrounding its imposition. However, after extensive efforts in collecting these amounts, a total of $228m (£127m) out of $263m (£146m) was eventually collected (87% of the total imposed).
“Some companies were afraid to pay the amounts through the banking system, in order not to be exposed or face possible legal sanctions overseas, and therefore preferred to pay in cash.”
The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil — most of which was resold to other nations. Besides Putin’s private office, those named as having received oil include political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry.
A section of the report on Russian involvement says Saddam and his henchmen furthered “their political and propagandist cause through companies, individuals and political parties that have no relation to the oil industry. Through their activities, they have gained the indebtedness of the Russian Federation and with that, its weight and leadership on the world stage as well as its permanent membership of the UN Security Council”.
Last week Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser who worked on the investigation, confirmed the report as genuine. “The records demonstrate that the UN oil-for-food programme provided Saddam with a vehicle to buy support internationally by bribing political parties, companies, journalists and other individuals,” he said. “This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.”"
-
ah... so you are saying that it is the old shell game? that these governments and their government controlled media are conspiring to divert attention from their own wrongdoings?
Are you claiming that their governments are acting in their own self interest are not being completely honest with their subjects?
lazs
-
I am saying that in order to protect their financial interests they needed Saddam to stay in power, and the propaganda campaign to demonize Bush was just a means to that end. The Ameristalker movement is just a residue of that campaign.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The only thing your post needed to make it complete was to have it end with:
LOL LOL BUSH IN A LANDSLIDE!
This whole thing seems pretty upsetting to you, Lazs...
OK, that's just misplaced. You must be getting Lazs confused with Eagler - who must think Bush is real dreamy, 'cause he gets all goofy and retarded when he talks about him. Lazs is just a crotchety old AARP member who likes to sit on his porch and clean his guns when he's not shooting at zombies (Zombies being defined as the undead and/or anyone who wants to take away his right to own his guns)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my guess is that the media in their countries is strongly anti American and anti Bush. I believe this because these posters seem so.....
I'm getting annoyed by someones everytime pulling off the 'anti-american' card, when it couldn't be further from the truth.
Do you even yourself know what is an anti-american?
Someone who doesn't agree with everything Bush says and does?
WRONG.
Have you already forgot what democracy is and that there are other countries who can disagree, without being anti-american?
With all these quick anti-american blames, the USA is full of anti-americans.
I guess most of the Kerry voters are anti-americans then... funny for an american to be anti-american.
-
Fishu hates Amurrikah. Stinky foreigner.
-
actually... I am not a fan of Bush in any way. I think he is way too liberal and owes too much to the religious right. I fear organized religion but not as much as I fear socialism and "proggressives"
I will be happy to see Bush win because he will appoint conservatrive supreme court justices.
lazs
-
I get it, sorta like Reaganomics...
-
5/6 on the flamebait scale lazs...
-
Social programs, hum me thinks a moment. Isnt Iraq a big social programm now?
I like Bush personaly. I like his funny demeanor but I dislike his politics. Its nothing personal though sometimes it may sound like it. I just dont like his politics. It doesnt even have anything to do with rebs vs dems. I choose Kerry because I think he knows what america needs.
-
that is fine coffee... I believe the oppossite. I don't know Bush personaly but he seems like an OK guy.... I don't like his politics either but mostly because he is too liberal. I believe that kerrie would be way more so and therefore be exactly what we don't need.. Liberal socialism is the wrong way to go in my opinion.
I don't go along with the apartment dwellers and women in this country.... I go along with the majority of the "red states" in the current (10-2-04) electorial snapshots.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It appears that ,barring something really dramatic.... Bush will win with a pretty handy electorial advantage. I think that the Americans here will take a victory by either candidate in (more or less) stride but... I think the foriegn posters will feel.... betrayed and it will simply increase their hate for the U.S.
lazs
And furthermore heres is a copy paste on the electrol college. As you can see, its obsolete as the British and no longer a threat.
copy-paste
What is the Electoral College?
The electoral college is a system set up by the framers of the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment. It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections. The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.
Why the Electoral College?
To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People". Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land. They had their own independent governments. They had militaries which defended their borders. They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.
Going back to the American Revolution, at that time, there were 13 colonies under British control. These 13 colonies did not want to remain under the control of the King of England, so they basically "teamed up" and declared their independence from England. A war ensued and their defeat of England won their independence outright. But the colonial governments knew that this was not permanent. They knew that England would one day come to regain control over the rich, fertile colonies in the New World. The colonies knew that the only way to thwart such an attack in the future was to start building strong alliances with each other in the present. Over the next 10+ years after the war, the colonies explored different ways of strong unions that would not only guard against future invasions by Mexico, France, and England, but would be strong enough to discourage those invasions in the first place. Hence, the conclusion was that a permanent union needed to be formed, a union of independent sovereign states with a centralized limited government that could call on the states to defend each other in the future when necessary. Legal documents would be needed to establish such a union, something that required the leaders of all states to sign and be bound to. The Constitution was born and so was the United States.
Shouldn't a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?
Yes. But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.
When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation. Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone. Let's assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit. Now let's assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends. Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit? Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone? Of course not. But there is the security factor. Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone. This is very similar to a state's decision to enter the United States. They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise. But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join. This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states. They CHOOSE not to be. This is very confusing to those American citizens who've been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist. Puerto Ricans aren't stupid. They like their independence. Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems. In Puerto Rico's case, they are having their cake and eating it too.
-
So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place. The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College. A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress. The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S. Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.
How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?
This is determined by the individual state. Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency. Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish. In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3). Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.
It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state. Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states. If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives. Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a "winner-take-all" system because it maximizes the state's voice in the electorate. When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
How many electoral votes does a presidential candidate have to receive to win the presidency?
An absolute majority. Technically, it is 50% + 1. Since there are currently 538 electoral votes (in 2000), a presidential candidate must receive 270 to win the presidency. In rare cases, no candidate has received an absolute majority. In this situation, the new Vice President would be chosen by the Senate with the winner receiving the most votes. The President, however, would be chosen by a unique election in the House of Representatives. Each state would get exactly one vote toward a single candidate. States that are divided equally along party lines may not conclude a winner for the state. So they may abstain from the voting entirely. But in this House election, the winner must receive an absolute majority (26) of the House votes. If no candidate was able to receive the required number of votes in the House, the Vice President (chosen by the Senate) would officially become the President. The selection of the new Vice President at this point is unclear and may be appointed by the new President.
The Presidential election has been sent to the House once before. In 1824, four different candidates received electoral votes, and none of them received an absolute majority. The vote then went to the House and John Quincy Adams was elected as the president.
What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?
This is basically common sense. What would happen when you decrease the power of government representation for a group of states? What if we abolished the U.S. Senate? This is exactly the same thing. Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union. This has happened before, in 1860. I shouldn't need to remind you of the 620,000 deaths over the next five years after that. You think that was bloody? Try abolishing the Electoral College or Senate in the 21st Century. You'll see division in this country not seen since the War for Southern Independence. Only this time, the two sides are not geographically separated. Our decades of racial, religious, and political integration in this country will come to haunt us in the future. It will be then when the nation's integrity and peace are ultimately challenged. Can we divide into two nations peacefully with few problems or will the liberals insist that we fight another war? Is 10 million deaths worth a segment of the country retaining domination over the rest? Only time will tell. I hope and pray that future leaders will foresee the blood-shedding and prevent it before it's too late.
So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart?
The same people who want to do away with ALL states' rights. They don't understand the purpose of having states in the first place. These people would prefer living under an omnipotent centralized government. They believe that their lives will be much more secure under such rule. Those of us who oppose such government power recognize that a strong centralized government that can deliver perfect security from invading and interior forces then itself becomes the primary enemy as it controls its own power limits. If you let anyone or anything determine its own limit of power, then it will choose not to limit itself. A "secure" nation is one with a perfect balance of limited government and national/domestic defense. Any shift in either direction leaves the population at serious risk to domestic and/or foreign opposition.
-
ok... and your point is? Bush would win with an electorial and a popular vote right now. I agree with the majority in this case. Bush is no prize but kerrie is as bad as they get.
I will be voting for Bush even tho... as a Californian... it will not help him electorialy. there are other issues on the ballot however and so.... while I am in the booth I will also vote agaisnt kerrie.
lazs
-
lazs, im a foreigner living in the US.
I visit news websites from my country, from the US, from europe...
I dont limit myself to just US sources.
Try it yourself sometime. :)
-
well... i listen to the BBC from time to time but since you are up on things perhaps you could enlighten me... why do you think so many foreigners are so apopleptic about Bush and so vitriholic about him?
Is it simply that liberal socialist foreighners are attracted by this board or that the media in their countries is so anti Bush?
lazs
-
Interesting post because as a foreigner I’m amazed by the hate for anything not American on this bbs. Europe as a whole is seen as a socialist cesspit and individual countries, mostly France, are singled out depending on which one is criticising the US that day.
So to turn it around, is the US media violently anti-world, or is it just the posters here? Whatever that answer, I’m pretty sure it would work the other way around.
-
I guess the difference is that Americans are not obsessed with voting in your elections or trying to sway people in your countries to vote for a democratic republic type of government or away from socialism.
This is more than a subtle difference. you say you are amazed at the lack of understanding Americans show toward countries that are currently attacking it? Not sure I understand what you are saying... who doesn't dislike people attacking their country?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... i listen to the BBC from time to time but since you are up on things perhaps you could enlighten me... why do you think so many foreigners are so apopleptic about Bush and so vitriholic about him?
Something to do with Bush's arrogance towards the other world.
When the french refused to join the Iraq crusade, Bush himself said along the lines "it was a silly decision for french".. he actually addressed the decision with the word 'silly'.
When there was no WMD found or nothing that he so highly praised Saddam being guilty of, he suddenly was saying that friends do sometimes have indifferences (well, close to that)
He should've at least apologized in some level, instead of excusing it off with a yet another excuse.
Thats the way Bush has been.
It'd be a big outcry if an european president would say the same of the USA decisions and an apology would be more than demanded.
French hasn't officially required for an apology.
Oh.. and we do have an example: some german ex-minister, who was not a minister at the time anymore, compared Bush to Hitler or something alike and he was made to apologize it.
Nobody has asked Bush to apologize his actions or words against France.
So you can see quite a difference there.
He cannot admit his mistakes and seems to think hes president in the NATO countries too.
Hes seen as an arrogant and incompentant person.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
While I'll be somewhat relieved to see Bush win by a landslide as it will restore my faith in the American people it might be more interesting to see a closer race and to what extent the libs will go to in once again claiming a "stolen" election. Hmmmm, confidence in Americans or a good laugh? Guess I'll have to go with confidence.
forgot to mention. We have a redio personality here who says he normally votes for not the party but for who he thinks would do the better job.
Even before Kerrys nomination he has said that this election he is voting for the Democrats.
Not because he is dissatisfied with bush but because "after 4 years of it I just cant take the Democrats whining anymore"
LMAO
Sad thing is though he has a point.
Most Dems still hate bush not because of the job he's done but because of the last election.
And have been whining about it ever since
Sure they have had these thinly disguised arguements with other claims of this or that but thats pretty much what it really boils down to.
Bush could have walked on water or singlehandedly found a cure for cancer and they would still find a reason to loath him because of the last election.
-
fishu... not to nit pic but ..do you equate one country calling one world leader "hitler" to saying that one countries policy toward an event is "silly"?
lazs
-
pretty simple: America rules the world.
e.g. Bush chose the war in Iraq. "foreigners" disagree yet aren't in the loop re: deciding what happens in Iraq and the rest of the axis of evil. It's something they feel entitled to as you do your guns.
-
He Mr. Coffee I enjoyed your two walls of text. I was in the US at the time of the 1992 Pres. election, and followed it closely. That's when I found out about this electoral college business. It seems to be a way of achieving what we here in Blighty understand as "Proportional Representation", in that greater weight is given to the votes of the more heavily populated states, like CA which (if I recall) has 32 electoral college votes compared with another large state like Nebraska which has only about 5.
OIO if not American, where are you from? Just curious...
Anyone who has lived in a foreign country will know two things: The way that the foreign country reports news in his home country is BS, and the way that his home country reports news about his host country is also BS.
In 1981, Britain was experiencing riots in places like Croxteth & Toxteth in Liverpool. They were protesting about Maggie's abolition of the cloth cap culture. The US news reports made it sound like a civil war was about to break out. All BS, of course. I called my brother and he said there were some riots, with ultra melons wanting to have a punch up with the police. Otherwise, "life goes on much the same"...
-
I'm more concise than MrCoffe :
electoral college suck
and the people defending this system suck more than a potato.
-
Lasz,
I don't think you're quite right in your analysis. It's not that people outside of America think that Bush is evil. It's more that he's stupid but well meaning.
Hope this clears things up for you.
Ravs
-
I don't think hate has anything to do with it... I think it's just easy to bait people regarding the elections. Afterall, I've seen posts on the BBS regarding the US elections for months and months and months and months and months (etc!!) and I personally find it quite amusing seeing the American's on this board constantly arguing about it all. Republicans.... Democrats.... someone gets flamed... must be too liberal I guess?! :) I also noticed how people get so defensive about their president whether they like him or not. In the UK we all know Blair is an ignorant, stuck up idiot and most welcome taunts because we can see through what he is. I think it all comes down to culture and what people are used to. Since the US is the 'big boy on the block', you really should be used to the negative press about everything by now? People always want to knock the person off the top whether they're right to do so or not, it's just a part of life.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Something to do with Bush's arrogance towards the other world.
When the french refused to join the Iraq crusade, Bush himself said along the lines "it was a silly decision for french".. he actually addressed the decision with the word 'silly'.
When there was no WMD found or nothing that he so highly praised Saddam being guilty of, he suddenly was saying that friends do sometimes have indifferences (well, close to that)
He should've at least apologized in some level, instead of excusing it off with a yet another excuse.
Thats the way Bush has been.
It'd be a big outcry if an european president would say the same of the USA decisions and an apology would be more than demanded.
French hasn't officially required for an apology.
Oh.. and we do have an example: some german ex-minister, who was not a minister at the time anymore, compared Bush to Hitler or something alike and he was made to apologize it.
Nobody has asked Bush to apologize his actions or words against France.
Fishu....I never objected when that Canadian lady, whatever position she holds, called Bush an idiot and I certainly don't remember outcrys for apologies. Being called Hitler and being called silly are two seperate things, and if you get that upset over being called silly...OMG...that's just...silly .
-
im from Colombia beetle.
And its correct when its said that the way other countries report on yours is BS and viceversa.
However, its when you see how other countries report on each other that you get to see what people in those countries are told about other countries.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess the difference is that Americans are not obsessed with voting in your elections or trying to sway people in your countries to vote for a democratic republic type of government or away from socialism.
This is more than a subtle difference. you say you are amazed at the lack of understanding Americans show toward countries that are currently attacking it? Not sure I understand what you are saying... who doesn't dislike people attacking their country?
lazs
I agree that some non Americans are obsessive about the US elections but as Moot pointed out, America rules the world as far as super powers go. It makes sense the rest of the world is going to be far more interested in US elections than the US is in theirs. Give it 20 years and China might be deflecting some of the crap away from the US.
Plus I can understand people getting patriotic and disliking criticism but what amazes me is how much time and energy people put into it. I can only react a certain amount of times to hearing I live in a dank socialist hell hole before it fails to really register.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
I can only react a certain amount of times to hearing I live in a dank socialist hell hole before it fails to really register.
Nailed it...
It's the same with me and the "foreigner" posts. At first I used to answer; now they barely register.
All I know is that these types of posts tend to dissapear when they feel secure and happy about life, and re-emerge when they feel insecure. Other than that, I could care less about some of the Yank's here's sense of entitlement to, what, this BBS?
-
Nash:
'Couldn't care less'
please, please, please!
Ravs
-
d'oh. you are of course correct. been reading this BBS too much.
-
I'm only a right wing Nazi when it comes to language!
Carry on, I'm enjoying your posts as usual!
Ravs
-
I find it a little ironic that you're saying others are vitrolic about something, lazs2. :)
I don't think you're really interested in hearing a serious response to your guesses. You're just looking for counter-punching opportunities to throw out the same, old snappy, 'this-ought-to-stir-the-pot', randomly generated words from the limited lazs2 talking-point list.
Americans are not the only people with a stake in American elections and America. The U.S. is the only economic and military 800 lb. bear in the woods and all policies of the bear have a direct impact on people across the world. If you lived outside the U.S., you'd be very interested in what the bear was doing also.
The policies of America also have an important financial impact on investment. America's deficit is funded by whom? If you say it is funded by future generations of Americans, then you are misinformed. It is funded more by foreign investment in U.S. paper than by domestic investment.
Others are no more "violently anti-Bush" than you are violently anti-Kerry. You're just scarier because you're a gun fanatic. :) Your inflammatory style could actually be contributing to people hoping (and acting) toward a Kerry victory.
Think about it, lazs. A normal human being reading your posts - not knowing that you are actually just kidding - might think that you were a member of some sort of radical, extremist, well-armed, fringe, militia group bent on overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with a wilderness anarchy. :D
But seriously, Americans are, for the most part, not hated overseas. Some recent American policies are disliked though. Many countries that have been supporters of the U.S. and considered themselves to be allied with the U.S. on many issues are now being isolated by the U.S.
How quickly you have forgotten the outpouring of support from across the world to America and Americans after the 9-11 incident. It is the policies of President Bush since then that has caused the overwhelming negative feelings in U.S. allies.
They have been dragged into a war that has no possible stable outcome. The entire middle-east situation has been a mess for generations and Iraq has no better chance of being any more stable than the long-running Palestinian-Israeli situation.
They were dragged into it by duress. The, "You are either with us or against us," comment by President Bush was particularly disturbing to many.
Many people outside the U.S. feel that the recent policies of President Bush have done more to de-stablize and polarize the world that they live in than Iraq ever did.
The U.S. isn't exactly the leading light in the world for unbiased media. Media bias is no better or worse anywhere else than it is in the U.S. One difference in media is that there is not media censorship like the U.S. is going through right now.
People outside the U.S. are allowed to see more graphic photos and TV images of what 'collateral damage' really means for the over 10,000 civilians, women and children killed and 70,000 wounded so far. You aren't allowed to see those images, or even the caskets of your own dead in the U.S. I have to believe that that has a profound effect when people ask themselves the question, "Now, why are we supporting this war in Iraq again?"
Sometimes those who are a few steps removed can see things with a broader view. Many people felt the 'evidence' of Iraqi WMD presented before the world, and the 'evidence' that Saddam Hussein could deliver them quickly, on demand, were the points that made even skeptics say that perhaps we had better give tacit approval to U.S. action to disarm him. Those two points gave the slight nudge to those sitting on the fence.
It may not matter if everyone was deceived or the administration was incompetent - the result is the same. The captain of the ship is telling the passengers to stay the course and they are either with him or against him. But he is blind to the field of icebergs he has steered the ship, with all the passengers, barrelling into at flank speed.
-
Rolex,
the real sadness is that I believe that Lasz has little or no experience of travelling outside of his own country, so he's stringing a lot of guesswork together to make an idiotic conclusion.
Lasz (bless him) has a very black and white view on life and cannot see any shades of grey which don't register on his radar. Condescending on my part? Definitely yes. But I would not presume to lecture Lasz on the relative merits on guns for particular uses. He should not presume to lecture us on the relative merits of international politics as he lives in a very small bubble and has very little international experience.
(Sorry Lasz)
Ravs
-
Lazs actually travelled to England once. I know about it because I know that he felt nekkid without his gun there. I don't wanna knock too seriously at Lazs, cuz the guy is kind of endearing in an odd way, but I have a feeling that he was one of those tourists that complain that they "don't understand the money".
-
ravells: I agree completely with you, sir. I think it's fair to add that exploring the world only in print or through the internet is not a good substitute for 1st-hand experience.
-
Yet another gem from the Rolex.:aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
d'oh. you are of course correct. been reading this BBS too much.
Stupid Canuck.
-
Well Laz,
Good question, one I have thought on after reading here. And have (in the good old ignurant unedumacated american way heh) decided that If a person can not or is not voting in the upcoming election, then all the text that is generated by them on this bbs isnt worth a bucket of warm spit.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Stupid Canuck.
I love you, man...
-
>>If a person can not or is not voting in the upcoming election, then all the text that is generated by them on this bbs isnt worth a bucket of warm spit.
<<
That is only true if your only goal in life is to sit on the sidelines and "be right." If, however, you choose to pick up the ball and participate in the world, you might find ideas useful. Don't feel compelled to - its a lot scarier on the field than on the sidelines. Afterall, its on the field that ideas and theories are tested - and somtimes it hurts. Its not for the squeamish.
-
Bush started a war of aggression. That's all the reason I need to hate him.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush started a war of aggression. That's all the reason I need to hate him.
What is a war of "aggression"? LOL!
Do you hate Saddam too?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What is a war of "aggression"? LOL!
What are you laughing at, your own ignorance? Go google the term.
Do you hate Saddam too?
Yep.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>
That is only true if your only goal in life is to sit on the sidelines and "be right." If, however, you choose to pick up the ball and participate in the world, you might find ideas useful. Don't feel compelled to - its a lot scarier on the field than on the sidelines. Afterall, its on the field that ideas and theories are tested - and somtimes it hurts. Its not for the squeamish.
Listening to virgins talk about sex, people telling others how to raise their children, who should be elected dog catcher in lower slabovia etc etc.
these ideas and theories that while entertaining and self satisfying to the participants are ultimately just jerking off.
When the discussion turns to electing Prime Minister of Earth the opinions of my fellow citizen of this planet I will listen to and weigh carefully.
btw a life lived to full is an adventure I have been enjoying these last 40 odd years, thanks for the advice.
-
Yea whats with all this stupid "idea" stuff anyway...
All this thinking is "hard, hard work."
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What are you laughing at, your own ignorance? Go google the term.
Yep.
Im laughing at your retarded term. Name a war that was not a war of agression.
-
lol, if one differs with you they are stupid, got it.
-
Originally posted by JimBear
lol, if one differs with you they are stupid, got it.
Im laughing at the term "war of agression"
what war is not a war of agression?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I love you, man...
You had me at "eh?".
-
Originally posted by SOB
You had me at "eh?".
Oh my god... what's happening here....
I've never felt more afraid.... yet... strangely.... I've never felt more alive....
-
Originally posted by Goth
and if you get that upset over being called silly...OMG...that's just...silly .
Umm.. I'm not french.
-
Originally posted by Nash
:
LOL LOL BUSH IN A LANDSLIDE!
Well...., he's going to win, but I doubt it will be a LANDSIDE.
-
Thing is, my friend, Otto...
Bush isn't going to win.
You guys seem to have become almost comfortable with being wrong all the time. Pretty soon y'all will be bragging about it.
-
Got some magical crystal ball you're drooling over, Nash?
I don't like Bush as much as you do, but you're prading around like you're better than us and you seem to feed off of everyone saying anything good about Bush. You seem to think that you're already right and the rest of the BBS is wrong. What gives? And why does it matter who is elected? Your life won't be any worse for wear. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What are you laughing at, your own ignorance? Go google the term.
Yep.
Well at least your consistant LMAO
-
Originally posted by texace
Got some magical crystal ball you're drooling over, Nash?
I don't like Bush as much as you do, but you're prading around like you're better than us and you seem to feed off of everyone saying anything good about Bush. You seem to think that you're already right and the rest of the BBS is wrong. What gives? And why does it matter who is elected? Your life won't be any worse for wear. :D
Im starting to think its because he IS Kerry.
Cant you tell by the block head? LOL
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Im laughing at the term "war of agression"
what war is not a war of agression?
In a war of choice the aggressor is the one who provokes the war.
Not that saddam didn't deserve it... he did. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
actually... I am not a fan of Bush in any way. I think he is way too liberal and owes too much to the religious right. I fear organized religion but not as much as I fear socialism and "proggressives"
I will be happy to see Bush win because he will appoint conservatrive supreme court justices.
lazs
You can't trust conservative supreme court justices, Lazs. Remember the conservative (and I mean *REALLY* conservative) governor of California who became the chief justice? Earl Warren?
I think we would be better served Lazs by balance in the court.
curly
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lazs actually travelled to England once. I know about it because I know that he felt nekkid without his gun there. I don't wanna knock too seriously at Lazs, cuz the guy is kind of endearing in an odd way, but I have a feeling that he was one of those tourists that complain that they "don't understand the money".
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif)
Very good, Nash! I think you're pretty close to the mark, not that I ever saw Lazs in England. But the highlight of last year's WC minicon trip to CA was going to Lazs's house the day after it ended. It was a higly entertaining day, what with shooting his guns off. :eek: Then we had some lunch, and then went back to Chez Lazs for coffee and entertainment - Lazs airing his views about this and that. My girlie and I had planned to be heading south by 3pm ready for the next day's trip to Santa Barbara, but we were enjoying Lazs so much that we stayed till about 6!
Lazs may come over as a tough guy, but never a bad guy, and I cannot imagine him ever hurting anyone.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... watching the posts from the guys on this BB from other countries I am sometimes awed by their hate for Bush.... I mean they act like it is the most important thing in their lives or that... more accurately.... they have information that is being with held from us poor Americans.
I realize it is a very small sampling of the world here but with the exception of say curval and beetle (who are money guys) the rest of the posters seem violently anti Bush.
now... it it because they are flamingly socialist and liberal or.... is it because all the media that they are bombarded with on a daily basis is really that one sided?
my guess is that the media in their countries is strongly anti American and anti Bush. I believe this because these posters seem so.....
gulible and clueless... they seem to be secure in their thinking that if they just get the facts out that "everyone" knows about how evil Bush is then.... the Americans on this board will suddenly be enlightened and the election will swing the logical way. This kind of thinking can only be because of a HUGE support group in the media and "common knowledge".
It appears that ,barring something really dramatic.... Bush will win with a pretty handy electorial advantage. I think that the Americans here will take a victory by either candidate in (more or less) stride but... I think the foriegn posters will feel.... betrayed and it will simply increase their hate for the U.S.
that is my take on it.
lazs
OK,
I normally do not get in to threads like this but this time I will.....
As an American living in Europe, here is my take on it.
Most Europeans see Americans as arrogant people, and most of them are, I do not mean this in a bad sense, but after living in the Japan, Iceland, & Netherlands. it's been the same every where I have went, Most Americans come across with "we are better than you" or we have the same thing but better," In the USA we do it this way" or "In America I can do this" etc...the biggest problem is no respect for way of life or other culture. it's our way or you are wrong. I will admit when I first got to the Netherlands I was the same way, until I acutely got out and lived with the Dutch in their"world" and then you begin to notice the little things that do make the difference. I am willing to bet that more than 90% of the people that post on this board that live in the US have never been outside of the US at all or for any length of time and have no clue to what are cultures are all about.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Others are no more "violently anti-Bush" than you are violently anti-Kerry. You're just scarier because you're a gun fanatic. :) Your inflammatory style could actually be contributing to people hoping (and acting) toward a Kerry victory.
Think about it, lazs. A normal human being reading your posts - not knowing that you are actually just kidding - might think that you were a member of some sort of radical, extremist, well-armed, fringe, militia group bent on overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with a wilderness anarchy. :D
[/B]
That cant be right.........everyone knows the gun "fanatics" all live in Montana, not California. :D Well, except for my family, most of them are still peekin out the windows at night in the midwest waitin for the injuns to attack the farm and carry off the women.
Proud gun-owners and defenders of Democracy (and occasionally marryin a cousin ifluff'n she's cute enough) for 200 years! Yeehaw!
P.S. We're all Democrats too, and even we cant stand Kerry. Wanted Dean, but he had to go and get all emotional! Havent decided if we dislike Bush more than Kerry (almost blasphemy). Or more realistically, havent decided yet how much damage control we'd have to do if we elect Kerry. :(
-
Heater, why should they care? (following the drift here...)
-
interesting... seems that only thje Americans here are offering answers.
Rolex is especially erudite and contained within his wall of words is.... it is both... and it is economics... the world media is angry at us so biased and... those who are on this BB are basicly ameristalkers anyway since they are playing an American game and on an American BB. I would say that those of foreign origin on this board are from wealthy families or young... so.. that would explain a lot of the idealism and liberal socialism. It apears that rolex believes both of my premis's but disliles me for bringing them up and is trying to justify them. I don't care if they are justified or not. I wasn't asking that.
ravs etc...I haven't travelled much outside the states... lots in the states. I have been to england and Scotland and canada and mexico. the money is funny but I manage. Allways something to see or someone to talk to.
I travel in other countries the same way I travel in the U.S. I try to get a car and drive around and I try to hook up with people who live there and visit with them. Don't know if that method meets with the arrogant world travlers here. I know that people can visit the states and never learn anything about the people who live here. probly true everywhere. most people seem to travel by hitting every big city and attraction... that would be fun I guess and I try to hit some myself but.... a lifetime of that kind of travel is probly equal to one world tour.
guns.... I am more interested in Hot Rods than guns but all the world travellers and foreighners here are not interested in Hot Rods... they do seem vitroholicly bitter about guns... I think it is more of the same of my original post.... their media.... their liberalism and.... their sour grapes.... if they can't have em... One reason I think it is the liberalism and weak genes of the foriegnrs that post here is because.... I know there must be som aussies and brits who are furious at having their rights taken away but all we get here is the liberal "nanny knows best" sheep.
lazs
lazs
-
and... rolex... your comment about "a normal human being" as it pertains to people understanding me is arrogant on your part in the extreme. I believe that it is the quintesential liberal attitude that onlyu you, the elite, can understand and that everyone else needs your help in understanding or... whatever.
I think "normal people" understand me just fine.
"Think about it, lazs. A normal human being reading your posts - not knowing that you are actually just kidding - might think that you were a member of some sort of radical, extremist, well-armed, fringe, militia group bent on overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with a wilderness anarchy. "
tell ya what.... why don't you "think about it" and how you sound?
lazs
-
I think it's a select few, most people I meet here in europe could care less.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... rolex... your comment about "a normal human being" as it pertains to people understanding me is arrogant on your part in the extreme. I believe that it is the quintesential liberal attitude that onlyu you, the elite, can understand and that everyone else needs your help in understanding or... whatever.
ouch lazs...this is the anonymous internet (unless you've met him at con) I wouldn't call him elite. Maybe elitist. I mean hell, the guy is probably still in college fighting the good fight with the rest of the students around him. Most of us went through a stage like that. You're no elite until you're in my newspaper.
-
I think you are right monk.... probly we just get the ameristalkers here who are liberal left wingers.
lazs
-
This reminds of those gameplay threads Lazs used to start in General Discussion. Inane, inherently about stirring the pot and with all the wit of a Garth Brooks record on repeat.
With all due respect, you're whining like a womenly man Lazs. While there are some that are rabidly anti-Bush, they are more than outnumbered by those who are rabidly zenophobic.
But I have to take issue with those who say you have not travelled. Lazs went to England once, went to some gay wine bar and was dissappointed by the women on show. He's travelled. He's seen the world!
-
never claimed to have seen the world dowding but... I will say that the people I met in england and Scotland didn't seem anything like you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
This reminds of those gameplay threads Lazs used to start in General Discussion. Inane, inherently about stirring the pot and with all the wit of a Garth Brooks record on repeat.
With all due respect, you're whining like a womenly man Lazs. While there are some that are rabidly anti-Bush, they are more than outnumbered by those who are rabidly zenophobic.
But I have to take issue with those who say you have not travelled. Lazs went to England once, went to some gay wine bar and was dissappointed by the women on show. He's travelled. He's seen the world!
Seems in the end, as rabid and annoying as he was on the threads, and I fought with him on almost everyone....he was usually right.
Seems to be the case here, too.
-
Likewise, Lazs, likewise. The Americans I've met were nothing like you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I realize it is a very small sampling of the world here but with the exception of say curval and beetle (who are money guys) the rest of the posters seem violently anti Bush.
How can Curval and I be "money guys"? I live on a tiny little island, Curval lives on an even tinier little island, and we don't have any guns.
FWIW, I think the recent attempt by the Guardian newspaper to influence the Clark County voting to get rid of Bush was utterly stupid. The Guardian is a left wing pinko paper. I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.
John Major made the mistake of siding with George Bush (1) in the 1992 US election. When Clinton won, relations were strained between our two countries and many fences to mend. Bad mistake. Best not to meddle in the electoral process of another country.
-
i'm not anti bush, i think both kerry and bush are as bad as eachother. i dont care who wins really - you're screwed either way ;) :D.
-
Originally posted by Heater
Most Europeans see Americans as arrogant people, and most of them are, I do not mean this in a bad sense, but after living in the Japan, Iceland, & Netherlands. it's been the same every where I have went, Most Americans come across with "we are better than you" or we have the same thing but better," In the USA we do it this way" or "In America I can do this" etc...the biggest problem is no respect for way of life or other culture. it's our way or you are wrong.
That is 100% spot on.