I'm Sorry

One more thing, pertaining to ethics. We both are foreigners, so, IMHO, we should filter our vocabulary when referring to the head of state of the USA. I am not the biggest admirer of President Jacques Chirac or Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder, but I never permit myself to call them names: I do not think that anyone except their compatriots can. I feel myself in full right to use any vocabulary I consider to be appropriate when I refer to the Israeli politicians, but I thoroughly choose words when I refer to the democratically elected leaders of the civilized foreign countries.

When he stops running my country, I can forget that he even exists. I didn't vote for George Bush.

Mr. Bush is running your country? And what does Mr. Howard do?

What ever George tells him to!

To prove my point, the opposition obtained government documents showing that John Howard has already committed Australian troops to a US led war in Iraq with no intention of seeking the approval of parliament, with no UN sanction and against the wishes of 60% of the population. He's a pathetic little puppet.

wilso and steissd,

Fret not! We in the U.S Have withstood people that burn our flag in public, and Al Sharpton's rehtoric (heck, the man is running for president !) We surely can absorb two individuals that can think for themselves and express themselves intelligently. We even have tolerated French Canadian tourists, so obviously we have a very robust socoety.

Keep on keepin on!

JM

OK, Mr. Morrison, these freaks that burnt the U.S. Flag were American citizens. I called to foreigners to use proper vocabulary when referring to the national symbols of the USA: National Emblem, Anthem, Flag, Congress, President and Constitution.

I dont believe that. I dont think this is the right time to act against Saddam - not in any of the ways Bush is proposing or trying out and succeeding to harness the entire world against him with - but to think that if Bush would just resign, there would be no bloodletting in, by or because of Iraq, sounds extremely naive to me.

Dictators like Saddam thrive on conflict, and will always return to provoking it (not saying he did this time, but he did before, with the Kurds inside, Iran, the Shiites inside, Kuwait) - if we leave him there, there's bound to be some trouble some later time again. It's just that my bet, at the moment, is that the scope and time of that trouble does not level up to the trust and world stability problem Bush is creating himself now.

You can't deny that Saddam's regime does pose a problem - even if not for the reason (WMD, Al-Qaeda) Rumsfeld cs would have us believe - to regional security and development - and it will keep on posing that problem as long as he remains in power. The tragedy of this situation is that by treading on everyone's toes and awaking everybody's submerged fears and distrusts, the Bush government, instead of solving the problem, has become part of the problem itself - or has become an even bigger problem itself.

I'm with Wilso here. The moment a foreign head of state decides to make decisions that affect my life and my country in a very direct way, I have the right to criticize him, in whatever way I please.

You would be right, steissd, if Bush would take decisions that solely concern the Americans themselves. As it is, the war Bush is about to embark on regardless of what the UN, his respective allies, or the countries in the region say about it, will create social-cultural conflicts in my country (whites vs Muslims), will speed up a grave economic crisis that'll hit Holland as much as any country and most important of all, of course - will create a world rifer with conflict, resentment and flourishing extremist and potentially terrorist groups than it was before he appeared.

It is the US themselves who have adopted - and proudly proclaimed - a role in leading and guiding the world, into adopting its values, following courses it has set out - that comes with an accountability towards that world, too.