Bush,A smashing London performance?

I love my country as much as the next person. But I never confuse "love of country" with "blind acceptance" of everything it does.

In another thread mentioned that France ought to be applauded for standing up to us -- no matter its motivation. I opined that if other countries started showing as much spine -- the world would be a safer and better place.

Obviously Great Britian is being lead by a man who does not have the spine to stand up to us -- or is simply not intelligent enough to see the downside of the moron in chief's policies.

But I extend my admiration and thanks to the British citizens who are more enlightened and who are making their sensibilities known in such a spectacular way.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Obviously Great Britian is being lead by a man who does not have the spine to stand up to us -- or is simply not intelligent enough to see the downside of the moron in chief's policies.

Alternatively, perhaps it is that he is not stupid enough to believe as you do.

0 Replies

You don't need a list from me, George, to know that the world is on the whole much safer than the administration would like us to believe. Once again I have to say that this either/or stuff just doesn't work. To paint the world as "evil" and "dangerous" gets into Lola's professional territory and labels like "paranoia," or (as in the case of this administration) into the political arena in which a leader tries to persuade people that the world is dangerous and the way to avoid danger is to follow him.

Get an air ticket. Go talk with the world!

0 Replies

Or should I just ask you, Do you think the residents of Istanbul felt safer before George W. or do they feel safer now?

0 Replies

Tartarin
Try placing the blame where it belongs. Fundamantal Islam.

0 Replies

dduck wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Perhaps we should have left Britain to its fate in 1917 and 1942.

Churchill asked President Roosevelt for support during WWII and he was told the President hands were tied, Congress would never agree to interfere in the war in Europe. It wasn't until the US was attacked that it decided it was in their own best interests to support the British. Don't fool yourself into thinking the US did Britain a favour. If Japan hadn't attacked it's almost certain the the US would have let Germany have it's way.

Iain

Yes - that's the way it was in 1942.

As for 1917 - there was never any real threat to Britain at that point. The whole battlefront never moved as far as Paris, even!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Tartarin
Try placing the blame where it belongs. Fundamantal Islam.

Try recognising that American actions are often viewed by other cultures as "Fundamental Christianity" or, probably more relevant "Fundamental Capitalism".

Do you understand that Islam has many wonderful examples to give the world? I will certainly concede that the attacks of 9/11 are not among them, but to condemn a religion because of the actions taken by a few of its adherents is simply closed-minded.

America has also done many wonderful things - invasion of Iraq is not one of them.

0 Replies

The US never ever does anything unless its own interests are at stake.

I am not saying that it is wrong, it is just that US should get off its moral high horse.

0 Replies

Kitchen and Gautam! Shocking! You mean we Americans spend a lot of time kidding ourselves? Us? Never!!

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

As for 1917 - there was never any real threat to Britain at that point. The whole battlefront never moved as far as Paris, even!

If so very odd that the British government sacrificed so many young lives in the fields of Picardy, and wasted so much accumulated wealth in fighting this remote threat. Odd too that they made such a concerted effort to propogandize the American public into intervening on their behalf.

0 Replies

kitchenpete

Quote:

America has also done many wonderful things -- invasion of Iraq is not one of them.

I agree with you. My comment was in response to Tartarin insinuating the bombing in Turkey was Bush's responsibility.

0 Replies

That wasn't quite what I had in mind, Au, but now that you've raised the issue, how many serious bombings took place in Istanbul between 9/11 and Bush's invasion of Iraq?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Obviously Great Britain is being lead by a man who does not have the spine to stand up to us -- or is simply not intelligent enough to see the downside of the moron in chief's policies.

Alternatively, perhaps it is that he is not stupid enough to believe as you do.

That, of course, is a possibility, George. I tend to discount the notion, though, since I see my position as enlightened.

Tell me, George, do you think there is no downside to the moron in chief's policy of preemptive attacks on countries run by men who have embarrassed members of his (the moron in chief's) family?

Do you think there is no downside to the moron in chief and his handlers lying to the country in order to justify the preemptive attack?

Do you think?

(In case there is any confusion, that last question was independent of the other two.)

0 Replies

Tart,

Are you suggesting if we were nicer, the Islamists, who have long since avowed their hatred of modernism and the West, would somehow refrain from what they have been doing since 1993, when they made their first attempt to take out the World Trade Center ? An absurd notion.

The same delusions prompted France and Britain to refrain from provoking Hitler when he remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria and finally dismembered Czechoslovakia.

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

Quote:

As for 1917 - there was never any real threat to Britain at that point. The whole battlefront never moved as far as Paris, even!

Yes it is a shame that the US entered the war. It could have gone on for another 20 years and we would never been faced with that European product. Adolf Hitler.

0 Replies

It would seem that the self righteous Europeans were for centuries the scourge of the world. Where did Colonial, subjugation of indigenous people, destruction of civilizations, imposition of Christianity and on an on originate? And now what do we hear America does only that which is in their interest. I should add we can thank the colonial powers of Europe for the upheavals in Africa and the Middle East. Europe and the Europeans bears a good part of the responsibility for the eruptions this world of ours has and is experiences.

0 Replies

au1929,

I suspect many Europeans believe that the formation of the EU has given them a new beginning, wiping away the stains of their ghastly histories, and ushering in a brave new world in which all nations are to be judged in terms of their suitability for admission into their sacred club. Moreover they presume that the legalistic, bureaucratic formalisms they have invented for the governance of the rich Western part of Europe are just the right remedy for the ills of the whole world. This view of course is quite blind to the realities of their own histories, and, as well, to the facts of the world today. President Bush is quite wise and right to give this distorted and self-serving world view the contempt it so richly deserves.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

President Bush is quite wise and right to give this distorted and self-serving world view the contempt it so richly deserves.

And that's, what he told Tony or will tell him in London?

0 Replies

Walter,

I don't know. However this view is implicit in the text of the speech Bush gave yesterday.

0 Replies

Nuclear Board Said to Rebuff Bush Over Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: November 20, 2003

VIENNA, Nov. 19 — The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency appears prepared to approve a resolution on Iran's 18 years of secret work on a nuclear program that will stop short of recommending United Nations Security Council action, a setback to President Bush, senior officials from several countries said here Wednesday.
Only hours after Mr. Bush, in Britain, declared that the agency must hold Iran to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, officials here said that the board was likely to adopt a European-sponsored resolution that was being strengthened on Wednesday to include wording that would likely "deplore" Iran's deceptions and declare that they amounted to a "breach" of its obligations.

Neville Chamberlain reborn. They will wait until it blows up in their face and than call for help. That appears to be the European way. Bosnia is a good example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/middleeast/20IRAN.html?th

0 Replies

Bush,A smashing London performance?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know