Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[alexandra]

You mean your diluted rehash of Marxist theory? I'm not interested, but I'm sure you can find someone in this thread or elsewhere to take it up.

Rev Prez

If you could ever be bothered to study what you so dismissively call my "diluted rehash of Marxist theory" we could discuss things intelligently. Do you even know anything at all about Marxism except the propaganda you have been subjected to about it? Yeah, it's "reds under the bed", huh?

Here is a golden rule in argument, Rev: Do not attack the person - address the issue. That is how all logical enquiry is conducted. And if we (hopefully educated) people are unable to conduct a logical discussion, there truly is no hope left.

 

[Rev Prez]

If you could ever be bothered to study...

I have bothered to study Marxist theory. It is a significant development in social sciences that was discredited long ago. I don't need to dwell on it anymore than I need to dwell on aether (or by analogy, some unknown crank's "diluted rehash" of the idea).

Here is a golden rule in argument, Rev: Do not attack the person - address the issue.

It would help if you didn't lace your lecturing with blatant lies. I haven't attacked you or anyone else. I've pointed out that I have no intentions of getting into a discussion of Marxism. You're free to discuss it all you want; just don't expect me to get involved.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

It would help if you didn't lace your lecturing with blatant lies. I haven't attacked you or anyone else. I've pointed out that I have no intentions of getting into a discussion of Marxism. You're free to discuss it all you want; just don't expect me to get involved.

Rev Prez

There are absolutely no "blatant lies" in my argument (and no, I am not 'lecturing' either; I am simply stating my views). Where are the lies? I am giving you my analysis of the situation. Here it is again:

From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

Here is why I agree with you, Rev Prez (and the reasons are of crucial importance): the US administration's foreign policy is not at all hypocritical because it treats other governments as either allies or foes depending on the changing needs of the powerful ruling class in the US... so, when it suits the interests of the incredibly rich and powerful elite of the US (whose interests the politicians of both the major parties represent), foreign policy changes from 'support' to 'attack'. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. But one has to see and state the reasons for the lack of hypocricy clearly. In sum, the US administration's foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by the needs of the ruling class.

Now, you may choose not to respond - but the only reason I can think of why you would NOT respond is because you cannot think of a counter-argument. By all indications then, my analysis is correct (since you cannot refute it). So don't answer - not answering is simply conceding

 

[Rev Prez]

There are absolutely no "blatant lies"...

Yes, there are. Specifically the completely untrue charge that I've attacked you.

Now, you may choose not to respond - but the only reason I can think of why you would NOT respond is because you cannot think of a counter-argument.

Then think that.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

I have bothered to study Marxist theory. It is a significant development in social sciences that was discredited long ago.

Rev Prez

To discredit a scientific theory you must replace it with another that better explains reality. There is no better theory to explain our current social reality. 'Post-modernism' is an anti-theory, and it is this paltry excuse of a 'theory' that has been proclaimed as the superior theory to Marxism. Post-modernism explains nothing - but it certainly serves the interests of the powerful in obscuring absolutely everything. Again: Marxism has in no way (absolutely none) been discredited.

 

[Rev Prez]

To discredit a scientific theory you must replace it with another that better explains reality.

Um, no. To discredit a scientific theory we only need show it is inconsistent with observed or experimental evidence. Theory on its own cannot supplant theory.

'Post-modernism' is an anti-theory, and it is this paltry excuse of a 'theory' that has been proclaimed as the superior theory to Marxism.

Wow, that's just...wow. And with that, I think we're done with this tangent.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

I agree, regime change would be justified in other parts of the world.

A fundamental problem with 'regime change' as a military objective is that with no official government structure left in place to formally sign a surrender the war is unlikely to have a clear end and so as is the case in Iraq it becomes an endless war of attrition.
Even in WW2 the main protagonists still had a governmental structure in place at the end of the war which allowed for the signing of surrender terms and an official declaration to the end of hostilities, without this the conflict could have dragged on for many years.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

A fundamental problem with 'regime change' as a military objective is that with no official government structure left in place to formally sign a surrender the war is unlikely to have a clear end and so as is the case in Iraq it becomes an endless war of attrition.
Even in WW2 the main protagonists still had a governmental structure in place at the end of the war which allowed for the signing of surrender terms and an official declaration to the end of hostilities, without this the conflict could have dragged on for many years.

This is a valid point.

None the less, it is a difficulty of "how" or "will this work", and not one of "is it morally right", which is fine with me.

 

[Art]

This is a valid point.

None the less, it is a difficulty of "how" or "will this work", and not one of "is it morally right", which is fine with me.

Somehow I doubt Bush and Co. would recognise a 'moral' if it jumped up and bit them on their collective behinds. It also shows astounding naivety / stupidity that they had not considered this and it's likely consequences when they planned the military campaign.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

And I thought it was because Japan bombed Pearl Harbour that America finally entered the war. I hadn't realized it was a purely altruistic move to help the europeans and the Chinese.

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway. The Soviets however, were in Europe's backyard and had every aspiration for conquering Europe or at the least "Finlandizing" it. I'm not saying that we didn't get anything out of it also, but Europe has only benefitted by having the US as an ally.

The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it - nor help defend the other precious regions of the world that rely upon our defense, such as Europe and Latin America. The price of the dollar is also linked to oil sale, since oil is sold in dollars - losing that would likely cause an economic collapse of the US, which would lead to an economic collapse of the world.

We can only imagine what such a state of affairs that would be - but probably similar to what happened to Europe after Rome fell.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009 - and when they do, I guarantee you that military actions will continue, because it is a national security council issue on both sides of the aisle. The "good cop/bad cop/dems/republicans" that you may see is a scam. Clinton has already expressed his support for the war on Iraq. Infact, he had been predicting that we would need to go to war with Iraq (over WMD no less!) for many years now.

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. Europeans did not care about what was going on in Eastern Europe. It was CLINTON who made the call to put a stop to it, not the leaders of France or the UK or Germany or Italy or anyone else.

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

 

[Rev Prez]

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009...

Most likely? What's structurally different about the American electorate than we've seen in the past two cycles?

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Most likely? What's structurally different about the American electorate than we've seen in the past two cycles?

Rev Prez

Because it tends to go (on the average) Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, etc. , changing every 8 years. Also, Bush won by a very very narrow margin, and his approval rating has plummeted in this 2nd term.

 

[Art]

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

Here are your words. I was pointing out that the option (which btw America was exercising) to mind their own business was taken away from them by the Japanese. Now please explain how I twisted your words?

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway. The Soviets however, were in Europe's backyard and had every aspiration for conquering Europe or at the least "Finlandizing" it. I'm not saying that we didn't get anything out of it also, but Europe has only benefitted by having the US as an ally.

Most western european countries had fairly good relations with the USSR after WW2. The US were the ones with an idealogically diametrically opposite viewpoint that meant they felt it impossible to share the same planet with communists. Believe it or not most of us couldn't care less what political system other countries chose to live under. As many in the american government believed war with the Soviets was inevitable it was their intention to fight the war in europe to avoid damage at home.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it - nor help defend the other precious regions of the world that rely upon our defense, such as Europe and Latin America. The price of the dollar is also linked to oil sale, since oil is sold in dollars - losing that would likely cause an economic collapse of the US, which would lead to an economic collapse of the world.

First America could cut back on her current consumption of oil (the highest in the world at 20 mill bls per day with Japan second at 5.4 mill bls per day) and second America could use her own oil reserves which stand at 22 billion bls. (data 2002)

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. Europeans did not care about what was going on in Eastern Europe. It was CLINTON who made the call to put a stop to it, not the leaders of France or the UK or Germany or Italy or anyone else.

Everything you say here is simply wrong. NATO is not led by America and it was the French and British who were the first to deploy forces and who asked Clinton to assist in Kosovo, for which, it seems to have escaped your notice, I gave Clinton credit for agreeing.

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

If you manage to post something at sometime that is factually correct I will be the first to acknowledge it.

 

[Rev Prez]

Because it tends to go (on the average) Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, etc. , changing every 8 years.

Um, no it doesn't. Republicans have controlled the White House for three fifths of the time since Lincoln, another three fifths of the time since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, and two thirds of the time for the 20th century up until today. Even so, there is no general model for party success in presidential elections; almost all are conditional on periods of party continuity for the sole fact that party politics does not have constant actors.

Also, Bush won by a very very narrow margin, and his approval rating has plummeted in this 2nd term.

A wider margin than in 2002, and with a country that is structurally more divided in slight favor of conservative politics due to redistricting and reapportionment; the advantage is more pronounced and lasting in congressional and statehouse elections. To make the claim that Republicans are likely to lose in 2008 is to argue that there's been an extraordinary first order shift in the American electorate since November 2004. That the president is experience a bad first half of 2005 is not sufficient basis to declare 2008--with an entirely different Republican candidate--is lost. There are many other questions that will go into the conditional model for that election.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Believe it or not most of us couldn't care less what political system other countries chose to live under. As many in the american government believed war with the Soviets was inevitable it was their intention to fight the war in europe to avoid damage at home.

It had less to do with someone else's political system, and more do with the fact that during the Soviet push through Germany they would not have stopped until they reached the Atlantic. It's fine if you don't care what someone else's political system is, but they were quite willing to make the decision for you at gunpoint, nice!

First America could cut back on her current consumption of oil (the highest in the world at 20 mill bls per day with Japan second at 5.4 mill bls per day) and second America could use her own oil reserves which stand at 22 billion bls. (data 2002)

Agreed.

Everything you say here is simply wrong. NATO is not led by America and it was the French and British who were the first to deploy forces and who asked Clinton to assist in Kosovo, for which, it seems to have escaped your notice, I gave Clinton credit for agreeing.

Can you back this up with sources please?

If you manage to post something at sometime that is factually correct I will be the first to acknowledge it.

If you manage to appear as something other than a whiny baby, upset at the dominant stature of the US, then I will acknowledge that too.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Um, no it doesn't. Republicans have controlled the White House for three fifths of the time since Lincoln, another three fifths of the time since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, and two thirds of the time for the 20th century up until today. Even so, there is no general model for party success in presidential elections; almost all are conditional on periods of party continuity for the sole fact that party politics does not have constant actors.

Republican during Lincoln and Republicans today are completely different, they are hardly even the same party.

A wider margin than in 2002, and with a country that is structurally more divided in slight favor of conservative politics due to redistricting and reapportionment; the advantage is more pronounced and lasting in congressional and statehouse elections. To make the claim that Republicans are likely to lose in 2008 is to argue that there's been an extraordinary first order shift in the American electorate since November 2004. That the president is experience a bad first half of 2005 is not sufficient basis to declare 2008--with an entirely different Republican candidate--is lost. There are many other questions that will go into the conditional model for that election.

If you say so Reverend. I wouldn't put my money on that bet, nor would I say that any "extraordinary first order shift" has occurring, merely that people are less enthusiastic about Bush now more than ever, and that is not saying much since he only won by 1% this past election.

 

[Art]

Can you back this up with sources please?

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

 

[2CentsWorth]

Somehow I doubt Bush and Co. would recognise a 'moral' if it jumped up and bit them on their collective behinds. It also shows astounding naivety / stupidity that they had not considered this and it's likely consequences when they planned the military campaign.

So true. It has been nothing but a chain of lies, with claims that the US would be greeted as liberators, that the insurgency is in it's last throes, etc. Bush's speech failed to improve support for the war, which is no surprise, and in large part because he refuses to take responsibility for mistakes. And how stupid can he be to continue linking the invasion of Iraq with 9-11?

Here's some recent poll results:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aQSQJC74SDhs

Bush's Iraq Speech Fails to Rally Support, Poll Finds (Update2)

``It's all about the war,'' Zogby said. ``This war has really polarized Americans. This is what his presidency is all about. The only thing that could change is if things start to go better on the ground, and it's not good to be at the mercy of external events.''

...Zogby said the divisive nature of the war is reflected in responses to a question about whether Bush should be impeached if it is found that he didn't tell the truth about his reasons for initiating the conflict. Forty-two percent said ``yes'' and 50 percent said ``no,'' the latest survey showed.

Whether it can be proven or not, most people know Bush didn't tell the truth about his reasons for invading Iraq. Unfortunately many don't care that he lied--that's the really disturbing thing.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

Art, your sources say nothing about the initiation of the NATO action in Kosovo!

Are you somehow trying to say that Lord Robertson made the call to go into Kosovo? That is ridiculous.

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/336715.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/337348.stm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/15/clinton.kosovo/

CLINTON was the one flying all over Europe trying to convince them that NATO needed to do something!

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

Of course, it only makes sense that the US would play the lead role in an organization like NATO, for obvious reasons.

The Secretary General does NOT make strategic NATO decisions, that happens on the council, which the US has a de facto strong presence on.

You can learn all about how NATO works here:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=nato.htm&url=http://www.nato.int/cv/whois.htm

 

[Mercator]

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

QUOTE]
Not Alabama, but Iraq. Or did you miss Galloway?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

QUOTE]
Not Alabama, but Iraq. Or did you miss Galloway?

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

 

[Mercator]

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:


QUOTE]
True. The EU and the UN have not always been decisive enough. Since you rightly put out that the US is an important player in the UN, we are all guilty of the same "crime". In the meantime the EU has learned and is using it's power. In Macedonia they have prevented a repeat of Kosovo. But that name does not sound so familiar , just because it was prevented to escalate.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:


QUOTE]
True. The EU and the UN have not always been decisive enough. Since you rightly put out that the US is an important player in the UN, we are all guilty of the same "crime". In the meantime the EU has learned and is using it's power. In Macedonia they have prevented a repeat of Kosovo. But that name does not sound so familiar , just because it was prevented to escalate.

I give the EU credit for that.

I also give them credit for the re-newed science initiatives of the ESA, whose missions I find quite interesting and resourceful.

 

[Mercator]

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing?
If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

I seriously doubt that. You did not defend Poland, Austria, Belgium, Holland nor France against Hitler's invasion.

 

[Mercator]

Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

The UN is the police force. They have constantly 60.000 to 80.000 peacekeepers in hot spots around the world. If you would detach your 130.000 soldiers to the UN in stead of invading a country for the wrong reasons, the world would be a better place. Besides, face it, you're already overstrechted with the invasion in Iraq. You cannot control such a country, no wonder that the Iaranians are laughing behind your back. That is what you got with Bush's actions: worldwide ridicule and the sense that your huge military power is far form invincible.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The UN is the police force. They have constantly 60.000 to 80.000 peacekeepers in hot spots around the world. If you would detach your 130.000 soldiers to the UN in stead of invading a country for the wrong reasons, the world would be a better place. Besides, face it, you're already overstrechted with the invasion in Iraq. You cannot control such a country, no wonder that the Iaranians are laughing behind your back. That is what you got with Bush's actions: worldwide ridicule and the sense that your huge military power is far form invincible.

But that would make the erroneous assumption that the USA was in favour of what the UN stands for, wouldn't it?

Look at the use of the Veto since 1972 when China officially took her seat in the UN:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

The USA has officially used her power 70 times to deny the 94% of the world population represented by the UN the right to democratic use of the UN itself.

The statistics show that the votes have been consistently the USA and one or two others voting against a resolution and then enforcing their will on the remainder with the Veto.

The USA has also stated repeatedly that they will not recognize the world court if it decides to side against a US citizen.

In other words, the USA uses the whole UN process as a tool to enforce US policy onto the rest of the world while refusing to be the subject of its authority.

VERY convenient.

 

[Art]

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

I wish that when people post references they would read them first! The links you posted ALL referred to Clinton's efforts to keep the coalition together AFTER the bombing campaign was in full swing.
Per the link I posted (if you read it) Britain and France were the first to deploy forces in the region. In the case of the British on Feb 19th 1999. At that time the US had sent an envoy Holbrooke through the Contact Group, to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Serbs. It was after the ceasefire he negotiated broke down that the US agreed to support a bombing campaign under the auspices of NATO but would still not commit ground forces. This air campaign (and thus the US military involvement) began on Mar 24th 1999. Geez you never let facts stand in the way of a good theory do you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wow.

Where does one start?

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

Could you? ... Or did you come to realize that the 'Tripartite Agreement' did not include you in "The new World Order" and that if you didn't join in the war at that time, when Europe fell, you were next?

Now of course all nations opposed to the agressor 'benefitted' from the agreement. How galling that must have been in the end.

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway...

How ironic then that Europe sees the USA as an abusive boyfriend who seems full of 'love' when he wants something.

The people experiencing the greatest 'benefit' was the USA who saw a 'world war' settled befor the obstacles of the Atlantic and the Pacific were overcome and the war was fought on her soil.

Advantageous geography is in no way an indication of 'higher moral value'.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it ...

Is there any comodity that can NOT be declared a 'national security issue'? Steel? Plastic? You're the people who developed the $10,000 coffee pot for gosh sakes specifically for use in Bombers. The plane can crash with no survivors but the coffe pot will survive.

Yes, we've noticed the Unocal bid shennanigans.

So is this the prelude to Bush finally admitting that oil WAS the issue in Iraq but it is okay because it is a 'National Security' issue?

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009 - and when they do, I guarantee you that military actions will continue, because it is a national security council issue on both sides of the aisle. The "good cop/bad cop/dems/republicans" that you may see is a scam. Clinton has already expressed his support for the war on Iraq. Infact, he had been predicting that we would need to go to war with Iraq (over WMD no less!) for many years now.

The first truth you've said.

Yup ... America is for Americans and the general feeling in the USA is that you have all the rights and freedoms outlined in your various government documents. Cool. This is the reason you have divergent opinions on matters.

OUTSIDE the country however is a different matter.

You're right. It doesn't matter who is in power in the USA because taht which makes you unique as a nation and your respective parties differ stops at the border.

For example, you deliberately bypass your laws protecting the rights of foreign nationals simply by not returning these people to your country but by dropping them off in a 3rd location where illegal methods of interrogation CAN take place.

You see nothing wrong with securing a foreign national from the sovereign territory of Italy and smuggling that individual to a third nation, Egypt for torture.

Thus, your pristine reputation of truth, justice and the 'American Way' can still be played on re-runs of Superman and kids can still salute the flag.

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. ...

That would be why Bush served Burgers and Freedom Fries to Chiraq at the last NATO meeting and he stated they would talk again when you 'elected someone with a brain'?

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

Well, here's a thought then. Apologize to the French. They were proven right on 100% of the issues while you have been proven to have attempted the deception of the whole UN.

 

[The Smoking Man]

CLINTON was the one flying all over Europe trying to convince them that NATO needed to do something!

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

Of course, it only makes sense that the US would play the lead role in an organization like NATO, for obvious reasons.

The Secretary General does NOT make strategic NATO decisions, that happens on the council, which the US has a de facto strong presence on.

Have you still got that problem of failing to recognize that the EU are separate and distinct nations and not states of the same country?

Have you failed to realize that the EU is currently working with many of the nations trashed by the uprisings there and pulling them and their economies back from the Brink?

Most of what you have said has been a lot of war mongering and chest thumping.

The remainder of the NATO nations are also concerned with the thing you forgot about in your rush into Iraq ... 'what happens when you win'.

Let's face it, Americans just LOVE to play cops and do commando rolls into ditches and stuff.

The rest of the world realized something about 'hearts and minds' and 'teaching a man to fish'.

Why do you think you've been cooling your heels in the hall while Europe has been negotiating with Iran?

 

[Rev Prez]

Republican during Lincoln and Republicans today are completely different, they are hardly even the same party.

I assume you take that as an article of faith, and either way its not worth debating in this thread.

If you say so Reverend.

I'm no Reverend.

I wouldn't put my money on that bet, nor would I say that any "extraordinary first order shift" has occurring, merely that people are less enthusiastic about Bush now more than ever, and that is not saying much since he only won by 1% this past election.

The President had a higher disapproval rating just before the 2004 election than he did in July of 2001. He went on to win by a 3 million vote margin and, more importantly, expanded his margin in the electoral college. So what's the big deal?

Rev Prez