President Bush admits responsibility

[Kayak]

Fear the politicians which will take away your rights, and which won't spend your money wisely. Political power is mostly about spending power, in the end, the 'moral' laws they pass will be awfully similar - mostly. Most of the time, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Very well said, if I may say so. Although legislated morality is pretty onerous too.

 

[El_Machinae]

Two types of laws: laws to keep a society functioning efficiently (drive on the right, and don't speed) and laws to keep a society good (don't torture suspects). Both are needed. We just have a hard time getting consensus!

 

[nonconformist]

Rofl. I dunno....I see several EU countries that do like the US pretty darn well. Even Germany just elected a pro-US chancellor.

That's an ambiguous, if not compeltely wrong statement...the Socialist party, and Christian Conservatives got more or less equal votes (well...the SPD got marginally more), and Merkel got in as Chancellor to the loss of (IIRC) Foreign Affairs, Welfare, Transport, and most other cabinet posts, so saying that a Pro-US chancellor (dubious for Merkel in any case) is innacurate.

 

[MobBoss]

That's an ambiguous, if not compeltely wrong statement...the Socialist party, and Christian Conservatives got more or less equal votes (well...the SPD got marginally more), and Merkel got in as Chancellor to the loss of (IIRC) Foreign Affairs, Welfare, Transport, and most other cabinet posts, so saying that a Pro-US chancellor (dubious for Merkel in any case) is innacurate.

Hmmm. I will admit I dont follow German Politics very closely, I just remember reading prior to the election that out of all the candidates, she was the one the US wanted elected to chancellor as she was viewed as US friendly. I had no reason to doubt the story, as it was carried among several news outlets at the time.

 

[nonconformist]

Hmmm. I will admit I dont follow German Politics very closely, I just remember reading prior to the election that out of all the candidates, she was the one the US wanted elected to chancellor as she was viewed as US friendly. I had no reason to doubt the story, as it was carried among several news outlets at the time.

The government is a SPD/CPU coalition, with the SPD actually having the cabinet advantage.

 

[carlosMM]

Merkel used to be pro-US, to the point of getting her hair brown.

But recent events (El Masri case) have cooled her a lot, especially since Rica basically admitted the US did it, then flew home and called Merkel deranged for saying so

 

[amadeus]

You should care... if you are not stupid...

The fact that most Europeans dislike Bush, is the reason why so few of us are helping you out in Iraq. God knows you could use every help offered...

The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and formerly Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Moldova. That's 15 (19 if you include former participants.)

Iceland supported but was unable to provide military support, bringing the number to 16 supporting nations.

That just leaves France, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belarus, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Greece. That's 16, excluding Russia. Almost a 50/50 participation rate, something that's not all that bad.

There are two kind of "Powers" in international relations. The "You do as I tell you because Im more powerful than you" and the "You do as I want because you like me". Obviously, you are more powerful if you master both.

We didn't tell France or Germany to do anything.

 

[amadeus]

Basically, the US (and Canada) is eating the wheat now, that we're supposed to be planting.

All I can say is that I'll bet you a significant amount of money that your doomsday predictions turn out to be another Y2K.

 

[MobBoss]

CivGeneral and MobBoss - the actual trick is to vote for someone who you think will agree with you on the important issues, will listen to your voice once in office, and won't lie to you.

I think I have been voting quite a bit longer than the average poster here in the forums thank you very much. I have also mentioned publicly that although I am a registered Republican, that there are some democrats I would consider voting for - Joe Lieberman for example. However, there is just no way in hell I would vote for a Kerry, Kennedy or Dean. They have spun off so far to the left that I have nothing in common with any of those types at all.

Likewise there are Republicans that I wouldnt vote for as well. Thats why we have primaries.

The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and formerly Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Moldova. That's 15 (19 if you include former participants.)

Iceland supported but was unable to provide military support, bringing the number to 16 supporting nations.

That just leaves France, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belarus, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Greece. That's 16, excluding Russia. Almost a 50/50 participation rate, something that's not all that bad.

Nice bit of research there!!! Good job!

 

[El_Machinae]

I have also mentioned publicly that although I am a registered Republican

Oh, I just mentioned you two to let you know I was butting into your conversation - I wasn't implying anything about your voting wisdom. Or, at least, I surely wasn't meaning to.

Actually, being a registered member of a party is very valuable, because your vote counts for a lot more. In Canada, we get to vote in the candidate who will run in our riding (so my memberships gets to have a say in who will be the candidates in the various parties). And since I'm only one of a few hundred votes, my votes mean more. When it comes to actually picking a representative for my riding, my vote is only one of thousands.

I'm sure it's similar in the states, eh? Is your party membership private information? Can you be a member of multiple parties. Being registered is a HUGE voting advantage in Canada, because your voice is heard multiple times.

 

[El_Machinae]

All I can say is that I'll bet you a significant amount of money that your doomsday predictions turn out to be another Y2K.

It's not a doomsday prediction ... sigh. It's just that your government is working with indicators instead of actual economies.

Here's a question for you, sir. When was the last time you invested in an appreciating asset (not counting your house)? When was the last time you purchased a asset that was geared towards enhancing your productivity,is that investment actually increasing your productivity after factoring in the cost of the asset?

The truth is, that the majority of the US and Canadian surplus income (which is currently over valued) is spent on non-appreciating consumption. THAT's why we're in trouble.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh, I just mentioned you two to let you know I was butting into your conversation - I wasn't implying anything about your voting wisdom. Or, at least, I surely wasn't meaning to.

Actually, being a registered member of a party is very valuable, because your vote counts for a lot more. In Canada, we get to vote in the candidate who will run in our riding (so my memberships gets to have a say in who will be the candidates in the various parties). And since I'm only one of a few hundred votes, my votes mean more. When it comes to actually picking a representative for my riding, my vote is only one of thousands.

I'm sure it's similar in the states, eh? Is your party membership private information? Can you be a member of multiple parties. Being registered is a HUGE voting advantage in Canada, because your voice is heard multiple times.

Where I am located in Washington State, there is a law in place that you cannot vote in the primaries unless you are registered as a party voter. Example: as a registered Republican I cant vote to influence the Democrat primary, I can only vote in my parties primary.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you pay a significant amount for your membership? Because a voting strategy could be (for example, for you) to have a democrat membership and vote for a democrat who had the most 'republican' leanings - that way you might 'win' either way.

 

[storealex]

The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and formerly Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Moldova. That's 15 (19 if you include former participants.)

Exactly! You need all the help you can get, therefore even pathetic amounts of soldiers, from countries with pathetic militaries are appriciated. All you need on that list, is the seven brave borderguards from Andorra

Your list is basically: United Kingdom... and the rest. Had US been better at convincing the world that it was right, your list could have been: UK, France, Germany... and the rest.

Remember the first gulf war? Back then you had guys like the French Foreign Legion to help you out. Both Germany and France have excellent soldiers, with experience from Yugoslavia and Afghanistan among others. Lord knows you could had used them in Iraq.

 

[MobBoss]

Remember the first gulf war? Back then you had guys like the French Foreign Legion to help you out. Both Germany and France have excellent soldiers, with experience from Yugoslavia and Afghanistan among others. Lord knows you could had used them in Iraq.

Your kidding right? French Foreign Legion? WTH did they do? Shoot a camel? Please...the vast majority in both wars was the USA getting the deed done. Other countries help, outside of the British, was solely symbolic in both conflicts.

 

[jameson]

Your kidding right? French Foreign Legion? WTH did they do? Shoot a camel? Please...the vast majority in both wars was the USA getting the deed done. Other countries help, outside of the British, was solely symbolic in both conflicts.

Yeah, 25,000 French ( one source) troops is completely symbolic ( not to detract from the fact that US troops did make up the vast majority of the coalition troops in Gulf War One, but still, it was more than symbolic).

Anyway, I find it really ironic how you applaud rmsharpe's recitation of the Coalition of the Willing for this war, most of whom did in fact provide only symbolic numbers of troops for pacification operations ( and most of which have left by now) while disparaging the financial and military contributions of those actual coalition members in the first Gulf War. Besides, where the French and German military really could have helped is in peacekeeping and nationbuilding operations, which from a long series of UN missions they have far more experience in than US troops. The single most fundamental flaw in the execution of the Iraqi Freedom operation was the complete failure on part of the US to prepare for the post-war stage: restoring order, getting fundamental services back online, stopping the looting and securing WMD sites. That's where the US could really have used more bodies on the ground, and more able bodies at that. The failure to prepare for that borders on the criminally incompetent.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, 25,000 French ( one source) troops is completely symbolic ( not to detract from the fact that US troops did make up the vast majority of the coalition troops in Gulf War One, but still, it was more than symbolic).

I was more impressed by your link as it pointed out Eygpt sent twice as many troops as France did. So bleh to you silly Frenchies. Matter of fact, looking at it, France sent less troops than several other countries, like Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman. I mean come on, if a major world power like France sends less troops than Oman that cant be "significant".

Anyway, I find it really ironic how you applaud rmsharpe's recitation of the Coalition of the Willing for this war, most of whom did in fact provide only symbolic numbers of troops for pacification operations ( and most of which have left by now) while disparaging the financial and military contributions of those actual coalition members in the first Gulf War.

Maybe because his recitation was directly in the face of the "most euopeans dislike the USA' statement made previously.

 

[BasketCase]

How do you know these two guys are right? They could be lying, just as Bush could have been lying.

The only thing we know for sure is that the intelligence community said "we think there are weapons here" and when we went there, the weapons weren't. Why? That's the part we don't know. Was the intel wrong? Did Saddam feed us false intel? Did he see us coming and move his stuff?

It's certainly worth investigating why the intel didn't pan out, but until somebody in the intel community is convicted of something and thrown in jail, we cannot say that anybody lied. Possibly somebody lied, or made a mistake--but we don't know. We may never know.

So what is your point?

That, in my opinion, nobody can say "Bush definitely lied" or "Bush definitely did NOT lie" because there's insufficient evidence in either direction.

 

[storealex]

Your kidding right? French Foreign Legion? WTH did they do? Shoot a camel?

Since you actually don't have a clue what the Legion did, it is rather idiotic to mock it. The Legion fought like they true elite soldiers they are, crushing the Iraqi forces faster and better than they were usually crushed by other Coalition members.

And if 25.000 French soldiers according to you can only be a symbolic, non-significant amount of soldiers, how come you're so fond of the British? At present, Britain is being hailed as your best ally ever, but they have far less than 25.000 troops in Iraq now. Your childish hate for the French is giving you double standards, Im afraid.

Please...the vast majority in both wars was the USA getting the deed done.

No body ever disputed that. But surely, it dosn't mean than all helping hands didn't matter at all. And surely, it dosn't mean that it still dosn't, which is kinda what rmsharpe is implying with his "I don't care" attitude.

Maybe because his recitation was directly in the face of the "most euopeans dislike the USA' statement made previously.

I didn't say that. I said "Most Europeans dislike Bush", which is the bloody truth. Guess you can't handle it...


You are being incredibly arrogant now, mobboss. Dismissing tens of thoudans of troops, coming to your aid as "Insignificant" It's people like you who are to blame, when the list of American friends grows shorter.

 

[jameson]

I was more impressed by your link as it pointed out Eygpt sent twice as many troops as France did. So bleh to you silly Frenchies. Matter of fact, looking at it, France sent less troops than several other countries, like Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman. I mean come on, if a major world power like France sends less troops than Oman that cant be "significant".

I'm not French.
Anyway, the size of Oman's contribution at the time was rather understandable; we were all warned about Saddam's intention to continue on from Kuwait into the Arabian peninsula. He was supposed to be "massing troops" on the borders for a continued invasion (which somehow never materialized - a familiar story really).

Maybe because his recitation was directly in the face of the "most euopeans dislike the USA' statement made previously.

rmsharpe listed the countries inducted in the 'coalition of the willing'. The latest opinion poll I recall in the Netherlands ( a nominal member) had Bush's popularity barely breaking double digits. As an American, you obviously know better how popular he really is here in Europe though .

(sorry, I didn't spot storealex's post before replying)