Bush's Security on visit to Buckingham Palace

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
I'm afraid that complaining about not being appreciated misses a key reason for some of the resentment of use of American power by the current crew in Washington, the incredible arrogance and contempt they exhibit when their radical neoconservative philosophy is questioned in any way.

Actually - Europe has resentment for America whenever we don't do what Europe thinks we should. You seem to think we are our own country - with our own interests.

Remember, Bush II said before getting to occupy the White House that he would be humble in conducting foreign affairs, but he, and even more Rumsfeld and Chaney, then exhibited no tolerance for real discussion and consideration for others views.

Do you remember 9/11? It seems as if much of Europe just thinks as long as we just don't do anything that the terrorism will stop. It won't stop. YOu guys tried that in WWII. The Middle East NEEDS to be changed - DEMOCRACY needs to be brought there. You guys don't seem to be too concerned.

The French are always prickly, but the Republican administration's attitude seems to have needlessly inflamed public opinion in Germany, the U. K., and Spain, and probably led to the defeat of what would have been a somewhat more sympathetic German government.

Schroeder was elected on anti-American sentiment. UK will get over it most likely and Franch as you have said - has always been "prickly". The only reason for France, Germany and Russia not supporting us in Iraq - is because they all had billions in deals with Hussein.

There were even implications by some neoconservatives, before they saw how difficult even an Iraq occupation was, that they'd be next dealing with Syria and Iran.

Why? It would depend on what issues Syria and Iran caused. I seriously doubt anything would have happened. That's a lame excuse. With a successful democracy in Afganistan and Iraq - the whole middle east CAN be transformed.

And for needlessly antagonizing countries, how about labeling them an "axis of evil?" All such name calling does is get their backs up.

Sometimes you just have to come out and say it. The only country I thought shouldn't have been mentioned in there is Iran. But as always - Europe wants to tip-toe around the problems until the become monsterous and we're back into a corner.

The same general foreign policy could have been followed without needlessly aggravating countries around the world. When you have such enormous power it isn't necessary to be obnoxious in diplomacy.

Sometimes obnoxious diplomacy is also called for. France threatened Eastern Europe with their EU membership for supporting us. We didn't really care that France didn't support us - as much as it was that they and Germany were going out of their way to stand in our way. And the reason why they were - was because of billions of dollars in deals with Hussein.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I didn't think you were ignorant.


Yes I wasn't. I said they got funding from people in the US and clarified that I did not mean the US government.

A right bunch of mind readers we've got in here. No need to argue: you lot can whip up an argument all on your own. Not winning it? Oh, that's easy, just pretend the other bloke said something he didn't.

You had said - "The IRA was being supported by the US". YOu did NOT initially specify citizens. I would be like me saying - "The IRA is supported by Britain".

As for Iraq, well clearly the sooner they get self-government the better. It's great that Saddam is gone but before you get on your "moral police" high horse remember who kept him there in the 80s.

Teh 80's was a different time. The Soviet Union was supporting Iran. We were actually supprting both to make sure the region wasn't destabalized. But believe me - we have more right to get on the moral high horse than Europe does, or even just England.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they vote in an Islamist government.

I'm sure you're just hoping for that too. I seriously doubt they will though.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes, that's why it's hideous: to replace an anachronism like that with another anachronism (one full of political appointees), when you've promised the electorate you'd create a truly democratic upper house.

I agree, appointees don't make up for dumping inherited positions. I don't know what they do, but... it would be better for them to be elected by the people, if they make decisions that affect the people.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

While I don't, in all respects, agree with JerseyDevil's views above, I would like to compliment him, and the thread in general, on calm discussion, not ranting (probably more then myself). But then, I haven't had much respect for the current Republican leadership group in Washington since they cynically destroyed the candidacy of a person I who I think would have made an excellent president, John McCain (depite his having more conservative views then mine).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
While I don't, in all respects, agree with JerseyDevil's views above, I would like to compliment him, and the thread in general, on calm discussion, not ranting (probably more then myself). But then, I haven't had much respect for the current Republican leadership group in Washington since they cynically destroyed the candidacy of a person I who I think would have made an excellent president, John McCain (depite his having more conservative views then mine).

Well we agree on who we would have rather have had in the White House. Although on some issues - John McCain might be more slightly left for me.

And thank you for the compliment.

[Hemel]

While I don't, in all respects, agree with JerseyDevil's views above, I would like to compliment him, and the thread in general, on calm discussion, not ranting (probably more then myself).

With respect, my view is that this discussion has not been calm, but instead has contained a surprising amount of offensive opinion, mud-slinging, and name-calling.

I'm sorry to say this, but as well, I find one particular attitude here so entrenched that my view has become that there is no point attempting to enter into discussion on this or similar matters at all.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Hemel
I find one particular attitude here so entrenched that my view has become that there is no point attempting to enter into discussion on this or similar matters at all.

Come on, Hemel, I'm not that bad.

This kind of thing you have to view as theatre. Very few people are going to have a sudden epiphany when they're typing away on their computer, still less admit to it in a public forum.

Admittedly, things like:

I'm sure you're just hoping for that too. I seriously doubt they will though.

aren't exactly helpful, but I assume that readers are intelligent enough to see what's going on here: a clumsy attempt to smear the opponent by caricaturing their point of view.

On topic (kind of), that statement came from a poll of Iraqis quoted on the BBC News on Monday evening. It found that, by far, religious leaders were the group that ordinary Iraqis have the most trust in.

The reason why it will be interesting is that it will test the mettle of this "democracy for the middle east" argument. Algeria, anyone?

Since terrorism and WMDs have been empirically proven to be spurious arguments in favour of war with Iraq, it's the only leg they've got left to stand on.

[Hemel]

And no, I'm not suggesting that people should have a sudden epiphany - it really doesn't matter whether they change their views or not. But what does matter, in my belief, is the way in they express their views .... that's what I meant by 'entrenched'

btw, and completely offtopic - I think you may not live a million miles away from me, Gaffer ... (which, as we're both in England, is probably fairly likely anyway ... )

[The Gaffer]

Yes, though I have to admit that I'm probably guilty of that from time to time. Maybe we should carry this over to the "manners" thread.

I'm in Oxford, btw, just round the corner from one of JRRT's old houses. Are you one of those new agers who live on the canal boats down at Port Meadow? *envy*

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We were actually supprting both to make sure the region wasn't destabalized.

What a laugh! Given the Iran-Iraq war, genocide of the Kurds, just how unstable would it have to be??

Hmm, selling arms to both sides in a war. Oh, and channelling the proceeds to a terrorist organisation. How very moral.

(And do me the courtesy of not coming back with any "anti-Amercian" slander here; we Brits perfected the technique and built an empire on it.)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
What a laugh! Given the Iran-Iraq war, genocide of the Kurds, just how unstable would it have to be??

Hmm, selling arms to both sides in a war. Oh, and channelling the proceeds to a terrorist organisation. How very moral.

Personally, I don't think any arms should have been sold to either side from any country.
*ACHOO*Yugoslavia*ACHOO* France *ACHOO* China*ACHOO* Russia*AAACHOOO*

And I don't think a nuclear reactor should have been sold to Iraq either...
*cough*France*cough*

Nor chemical weapons...
*cough*China*cough*

Because the region is so volitile.

(Pardon me. It's flu season here. )

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel


(Pardon me. It's flu season here. )

Heh heh. Here, have a hankie. Sorry, maybe you'd prefer a clean one.

Hey, they're no angels, no question about that. And I heartily agree with you about the arms trade.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Heh heh. Here, have a hankie. Sorry, maybe you'd prefer a clean one.

Yes, a clean one, thanks.

Hey, they're no angels, no question about that. And I heartily agree with you about the arms trade.

Thanks. I honestly don't think any country should be in the business of selling arms in the first place. Though, I certainly understand how difficult it would be to sit by and watch one weaker country get pummeled by another stronger country.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You took the wrong polling information.

This is what I had said...


Here is the polling info to support this from the same site you gave...


55% think is was RIGHT to go into iraq and only 39% think it was wrong. You took the do you think the current policy in Iraq is right or not. The next time I would suggest you take the correct polling information if you want to argue against me.

of course, how the question is asked influences the answer.

"In your view is the the war in Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives, and other costs, or not worth it?"

Worth it:44%
Not worth it:50%

LA Poll: worth it ;48%
not worth it: 44%

"Worth the cost in US military lives"

worth it: 31%
not worth it:59%

ABC News Poll:
52%- worth fighting
44% -not worth fighting

For example, look at two schizophrenic reations on the same poll:

CBS News:
Removing Saddam Hussein from power:

worth it: 50%
not worth it: 43%

From the same poll

"worth the loss in American life and other costs: "

worth it:40%
not worth it:51%

The evidence is clear: Americans are totally in favour of removing Saddam from power; they just don't want to pay the costs.

Unfortunately, the Iraqis are handing them the bills.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Personally, I don't think any arms should have been sold to either side from any country.
*ACHOO*Yugoslavia*ACHOO* France *ACHOO* China*ACHOO* Russia*AAACHOOO*

And I don't think a nuclear reactor should have been sold to Iraq either...
*cough*France*cough*

Nor chemical weapons...
*cough*China*cough*

Because the region is so volitile.

(Pardon me. It's flu season here. )

Nor guiding chemical attacks *cough* USA*

Nor supporting Saddam after he committed genocide against the Kurds while people like Al Gore were trying to stop him

*George Bush* Dick Cheney* *Donald Rumsfeld* *Colin Powell*

cough, cough, cough.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Nor guiding chemical attacks *cough* USA*

That's a new one on me. What was that all about?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Nor supporting Saddam after he committed genocide against the Kurds while people like Al Gore were trying to stop him

I voted for Al Gore. I think he would have made a very good president, albeit not a very charismatic one.

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Gaffer
That's a new one on me. What was that all about?

A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq. The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

Al Gore, among others, including senior Republicans such as Jesse Helms (!), co-sponsored a resolution imposing sanctions on Saddam for his use of poison gas against the Kurds

Shortly after the massacre at Halabja, Senators Claiborne Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms introduced legislation to impose sanctions on Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 unanimously passed the US Senate just one day after being introduced.

So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course. Conventional Wisdom says that he did this because in those days Iran was the Bad Guy, and anyone who was an enemy of Iran was on Our Side.

The Reagan administration, which had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees, saw Hussein's Iraq both as a potential security partner in the volatile Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.

Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.

While past error is no indication of future action, the Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan's decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds. Dick Cheney, then a prominent Republican congressman and now vice president and the Bush administration's leading Iraq hawk, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not. [Peter W. Galbraith, "The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq," The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]

And of course, Bob Dole went to Iraq and pronounced Hussein as "someone we can work with"- knowing he had gassed the Kurds- hey, what's a few dead bodies when there's wheat deals to be cut?

[Ruinel]

We're not all bad, GrayMouser. Some of us were on Al Gore's side. We knew some of the horrors committed there. And I'm personally frustrated that the world didn't step in to help the Kurds, or stop the slaughter. Sorry, it's my opinion and if I've just insulted someone, sorry. I know that some countries ignored the UN embargos and traded anyway.

[jerseydevil]

We've been over this and over this and over this. Yes - we let Hussein gas the Kurds - was it right - no - it was not. What was the situation in the 80's though - let's see. The Soviet Union was supporting Iran in a war against Iraq. If Iran won - the whole region would have been turned on it's head. The US was attempting to keep the status quo. Was it humane to just turn a blind eye to Hussein gassing the Kurds - no - it was the politcal environment though. Whether you like it or not. YOu go on and on about the US not doing something about Hussein then - well no we have - after him killing 100's of thousands of more people. He can't kill or gas anyone else - he can't torture people anymore by dipping them in acide baths or putting them through meat grinders.


Hemel - A person when a person shares the same opinion as someone else - it is "rah rah rah, go get them" when someone does not share the same opinions - then it is "that person is arrogant and argumentative" It's human nature. You don't see the snide comments of the people you agree with such as this made by The gaffer...

...but I assume that readers are intelligent enough to see what's going on here: a clumsy attempt to smear the opponent by caricaturing their point of view.

I'm not going to change my opinion to satisfy you or anyone else. I've been here a lot longer than either you, The Gaffer or GrayMouser so you guys are unaware of the constant bashing of America that has been going on. There was so much anti-Americanism before - which has now made me react to this constant America bashing - that threads had to be suffixed with "no American bashing". If you don't believe me - look up some threads. You cna bash us all you want though - just remember as I said 2 years ago - those who live in glass houses - shouldn't throw stones.

GrayMouser - The majority of Americans still support STAYING in Iraq - no matter what it takes. Is it more expensive than we originally thought? yes it is. The oil pipelines were more damaged - Europe is playing "point the finger and laugh". It is obvious from the BBC and French news that you guys want us to come crawling on our hands and knees and beg for support. Or you want us to basically fail so you can say - "see the stupid Americans". You say it's not so - but everyday I see this type of attitude on European news.

As for not liking Bush - you don't liek him because he doesn't kiss europe's big fat ass like Clinton did. He just lays it on the line and if you don't like it - he just says fine and does it anyway. The other thing you don't like - is that he doesn't share your liberal politics. Well hate to you this - but the majority of Americans don't share your liberal politics either.

By the way - Hemel - is it statements like - "he doesn't kiss europe's big fat ass" that you were talking about? If so - I suggest you go look at the past threads I mentioned to see why I'm not that happy with Europeans anymore.