« Politically Incorrect: German-Language Blog of the Week | Main | The Loser is Germany »

Comments

@DoveHunter:

"That is irrelevant, the people in Latin America speak Latin anyways."

Huh? What are you smoking? I challenge you to find any country anywhere in the world where Latin is a common language today.

I think Dovehunter was using an old joke there about Latin America - or at least I hope so

I am sure it has been attributed to Bush 43 by now - I can recall when it was Reagan that "said" it

As for this comment by Dove "I am glad the group of rational people have arrived at this conclusion"

But this is the whole point - when an entire group arrives at the same conclusion about a matter non-scientific - this tells us more about their lack of independent thinking than it does about the matter at hand

That there is simply no pro-Bush, pro-conservative, voice in Europe of note should clue you in

Its not that an "entire group" - in this case a hundred million Europeans have come to this conclusion by rational analysis of the pro's and con's of the Bush admin

Clearly this is an example of groupthink

I am not telling you that YOU didn't arrive at your opinion through an observation of events and analysis of the facts

I am not saying that many didn't do so as well in Europe

I am saying that the complete uniformity of opinion regarding the Bush admin proves that there is a lack of independent thinking among many europeans on this matter

The same is true of the value of the UN and the Kyoto protocals to give two other examples

In the US you will find pro and con groups on such issues

In Europe you only find one opinion

And you can't see why this indicates a lack of independent thinking

Well, if you choose not to see it there is no way to explain it further

James wrote:
...Btw, GW Bush speaks fluent Spanish....

George W. Bush speaks a little bit Spanish. His brother, Jeb Bush is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish fluently.

The short analysis of things:

Americans are very nationalistic and boisterous. They sing their national anthem at football games. They salute their flag. For the most part, they treat returning American veterans with respect.

Germans used to be like Americans, but they lost the war sixty years ago. Three generations have now grown up to be taught that it is bad, if not shameful, to be nationalistic.

European integration means that not only Germans, but French and Brits must give up their national identities to part of a collective European identity.

Euros get upset when they see Americans cheering their own on....whether it be at the Tour de France or at the Athens Olympics. It goes against having a collective identity.

The American economy is wiping the behind of the European economy even though the US is into deficit spending with a war going on....Euros can not fathom this.

Americans net $20,000 more per capita then most Europeans. Europeans, especially Germans, are envious about this advantage. Therefore, you hear grumblings such as "they waste 1/4 of the world’s energy," or that American firms are "blood suckers," as depicted in the IG Metal magazine.

The bottom line is that Europeans, especially Germans, are very envious of the US and will go out of their way to make petty and childish criticism.

This petty criticism leads to coddling of dictators who "stand up to" the USA

The support that regimes like Saddam's had from European opposition to war in 2003 cannot be overstated

It was by a very narrow margin he ended up in jail

F.T. said that " ...Germans and other Europeans just can't relate to his rural texan style. He made the cultural differences between Americans and Europeans more obivious than any President before.Germans and other Europeans just can't relate to his rural texan style. He made the cultural differences between Americans and Europeans more obivious than any President before."

I'm old enough to remember a US President who was actually a rural Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson. I remember President Johnson hauling Chancellor Erhard down to the LBJ Ranch and forcing him to be photographed wearing a 10-gallon hat. I remember seeing pictures of LBJ herding cattle at the ranch in his white convertible Lincoln while drinking beer (and throwing the empty beer cans over his shoulder), pointing to his gall bladder scar and picking his dogs up by ears. I don't recall that President Johnson's style created problems with Europeans back then. And I don't think there's any basis for claiming that the cultural differences between the US and Europe were less 40 years ago.

If the current administration were to pursue only those policies that would meet with the approval of the German academic/media/political elite, I doubt that any one in Germany would even be aware of President Bush's style, much less be bothered by it.

So just that I understand it correctly: We in Germany only have biased media, while in the US everybody's an independent thinker?! Is that why most Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11?
That he had WMD?

Man alive.

---

Look, I'm German - I was for the Iraq war. I defended the Bush administration's policy because I believed the president.

I was watching FOX NEWS at the time ...

... where a certain Bill O'Reilly promised shortly after the war, that if not within 6 weeks WMD were being found inside Iraq he was gonna go after the Bush administration for lying to the American public (and to the world, for that matter).

Did he go after Bush? No.

Did anyone in the US media? No.

Did anyone in Congress? No. (Except some 'liberal' (=evil communist antichrist) politicians)

And now some of you are saying that Annan's wrongdoing was 'the biggest financial scandal in history'? Come on.

What about sending people to DIE because of weapons THAT DO NOT EXIST
What about sending people to DIE because of a link to 9/11 THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST

What about lying to the American public?
You republicans were all over Clinton for 'lying' to Congress - well Bush LIED TO CONGRESS!!!
The difference is that in Clinton's case
- no one got killed in the process
- the president got impeached
- the only thing he was hiding was having sex with 'that woman' - clearly worse for some Americans than war.

I just don't get it anymore.

Again, I was for the war.
I've been a fan of the US since I was a little boy.
I defended US policy because I believed it to be based on facts - falsely, as it turns out.
I have learned from it. I've learned that Mr Bush cannot be trusted.

Americans have learned that too.
That's why they disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation by a wide majority now.

So don't critisize Germans for the same things Americans now believe by a majority.

---

There are several kinds of 'Anti-Americanism' in Germany

- a few morons who really do hate America, its values, and capitalism
- a small number who believe everything the left-wing media says but don't really know anything
- a vast number who DO NOT LIKE MR BUSH BECAUSE HE LIED TO THEM AND STARTED A WAR based on the lies

But then there's Anti-Germanism, as expressed on this board:

Is that any better?

---

This is important for you to know:

People here don't hate the US at all - they do not like your current administration!!

That's a big difference.

BTW, here's just one example of how 'unbiased' some of your media are:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/harry-shearer/found-object-we-coach-y_1182.html

Anyone watching FOX NEWS blaming other media of being biased must truly be the most ridiculous item of the day ...

Robert: a vast number who DO NOT LIKE MR BUSH BECAUSE HE LIED TO THEM AND STARTED A WAR based on the lies

How boring can it be to repeat the same childish claims, over and over and over and... again...? Very boring... Robert, this is for you, even though it is in vain:

1. The WMD was NOT a lie, it was wrong intelligence at the time of the war, all over the world(including Germany and France). I repeat, it was NOT a lie.
2. The Iraq war was/is not an end in itself, it is only the beginning. The war in Iraq should have started even if Saddam was simply wearing the wrong shoes. The goal of this whole thing is far beyond removing Saddam. The goal is to stirr up the region and try to clean it up somewhat, because, boy, it needs lots of cleaning up. This will be a long process, and Iraq was only the starting point.

The points I made above are pretty much the essence of the whole thing. I really don't know what's so difficult to understand, but obviously for many people, those two points are beyond their understanding. Robert, as long as people like you will focus only on WMDs and the Iraq war, and will not see what Bush is trying to accomplish in the whole region, there will be little common ground between us.

There will be always nations/athletes who will be overjoyed just to show up at the Olympics, without having any big ambitions, and there will always be other nations/athletes who can't even conceive not giving their best and being the best. For some, being at the Olympics will be the fulfillment of their dreams, for others being at the Olympics is only the beginning of hard work. Robert, Bush falls into the winner category, while most of this foreign policy critics are happy to be part of the mediocrity gang.

Robert wrote

So just that I understand it correctly: We in Germany only have biased media, while in the US everybody's an independent thinker?! Is that why most Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11? That he had WMD?

---------------------------------------

Source for number 1 - or are you a liar?

As for WMD - most Americans agreed with the German intelligence service ( and the CIA, MI6, ect ect ) - did you believe he had NO WMD then?

--------------------------------------------

---

Look, I'm German - I was for the Iraq war. I defended the Bush administration's policy because I believed the president.

I was watching FOX NEWS at the time ...

... where a certain Bill O'Reilly promised shortly after the war, that if not within 6 weeks WMD were being found inside Iraq he was gonna go after the Bush administration for lying to the American public (and to the world, for that matter).

Did he go after Bush? No.
------------------------
What does "go after" mean?
-------------------------------

Did anyone in the US media? No.
--------------------

Ever heard of the New York fucking Times ya retard. Jesus Christ MOST of the media has been all over the Bush admin for years about this
---------------------------------

Did anyone in Congress? No. (Except some 'liberal' (=evil communist antichrist) politicians)
-----------------------------

The entire Democratic party has gone after him - ever heard of John Kerry?
---------------------------------


And now some of you are saying that Annan's wrongdoing was 'the biggest financial scandal in history'? Come on.
------------------------------

Do the math - get the answer

---------------------------------

What about sending people to DIE because of weapons THAT DO NOT EXIST

-------------------------------

This is a "financial scandel"?
--------------------------------


What about sending people to DIE because of a link to 9/11 THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST

_----------------------

You don't know anything about 9-11 - but lets try anyway What was the cause of 9-11? What is the best way to prevent the next 9-11?

Lets see your answers
------------------------------------

What about lying to the American public?
You republicans were all over Clinton for 'lying' to Congress - well Bush LIED TO CONGRESS!!!
-----------------------------

Accepting the intelligence provided by the CIA is not "lying" Sitting in court and lying is lying

Sorry if you wish you could have been the one to felate Clinton yourself
------------------------------------

The difference is that in Clinton's case
- no one got killed in the process
- the president got impeached
- the only thing he was hiding was having sex with 'that woman' - clearly worse for some Americans than war.

I just don't get it anymore.

--------------------------------

Add it to the list of things you don't get

-----------------------------------------

Again, I was for the war.
I've been a fan of the US since I was a little boy.
I defended US policy because I believed it to be based on facts - falsely, as it turns out.
I have learned from it. I've learned that Mr Bush cannot be trusted.

---------------------------------

And we've learned you are still effectively a "little boy" Whats the matter Robert - the case against Saddam was sound - so what if it turned out he didn't have active WMD - everyone thought he did - he didn't do what was needed to prove he didn't - so the result was he was taken out

You wish he wasn't taken out now?

------------------------------------

Americans have learned that too.
That's why they disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation by a wide majority now.
--------------------------------

Source

---------------------------------------


So don't critisize Germans for the same things Americans now believe by a majority.

---

There are several kinds of 'Anti-Americanism' in Germany

- a few morons who really do hate America, its values, and capitalism
- a small number who believe everything the left-wing media says but don't really know anything
- a vast number who DO NOT LIKE MR BUSH BECAUSE HE LIED TO THEM AND STARTED A WAR based on the lies

---------------------------------

Get over yourself. If you wish Saddam were not deposed based on the threat that his possession of WMD and his links with terrorism presented based soley on the fact that he didn't YET have any WMD ( just plans to get em ) then I think your support for the war was mighty thin
--------------------------------------------

But then there's Anti-Germanism, as expressed on this board:

Is that any better?

---

This is important for you to know:

People here don't hate the US at all - they do not like your current administration!!

That's a big difference.

---------------------

EUROPEANS don't like CONSEARVATIVE CHURCH GOING AMERICANS

People here don't hate the US at all - they do not like your current administration!!

That is a FUCKING LIE. Sorry, I was in Italy and Germany in 1999 during the Kosovo war. 1,000,000 gathered in Rome shouting Clinton's a murderer, etc...so give me a goddamn break, Robert.

Oh, and then there was Mitterand's "we are at war with the United States" at the same time. So please, Robert--stop lying. Europeans hated America then--that they hate it now more surprises me not at all. But you know what? We stopped caring awhile back.

@ BMN

"We stopped caring awhile back."

Then why do you bother commenting on this post, or holding a discussion on the very same topic?

@WhatDoIknow - 'I repeat, it (the WMD) was NOT a lie. '

'Course it was. And you can repeat it a thousand times that it wasn't, a lie stays a lie.
Read 'Plan of attack' by Bob Woodward.
They wanted this war in the worst way.
They were gonna do anything to get it.
And so they lied about WMD and links to 9/11, because that creates fear amongst the public.
Easy as that.

@poguemahone - What exactly is your reason for attacking me personally? You do seem quite helpless in your argumentation.

--
'Accepting the intelligence provided by the CIA is not "lying" '
--

What intelligence? Did YOU see it? People who saw it said it was a bunch of crap.
Do you know former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke?

Bush told him after nine eleven that evidence should be found to prove Saddam was behind 9/11.
He had to tell him that that was not true.
Still, Bush ordered the CIA to produce evidence for his assertion.

You really must be quite uninformed or naive to not see how this was fabricated crap to support a war.

--
'Did he (O'Reilly) go after Bush? No.
------------------------
What does "go after" mean?'
--

Ask O'Reilly.

--
'Ever heard of the New York fucking Times ya retard.'
--

What's the argumentative point in calling me a retard?

--
'What about sending people to DIE because of a link to 9/11 THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST

----------------------

You don't know anything about 9-11 - but lets try anyway What was the cause of 9-11? What is the best way to prevent the next 9-11?

Lets see your answers'
--

Oh I don't know anything about 9-11? From reading your crap posts I can see that a know a LOT more about these things than you do, since you're obviously only repeating the propaganda FOX, the GOP and the PNAC spew out.

I recommend you honestly try to answer these questions for yourself; you actually might learn a bit about the ROTW (rest of the world, if you know where that place is).

And since you didn't answer my questions, how can you expect me to answer yours?
Only so much - I don't think the best idea to prevent another 9/11 is to shoot up thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians for no reason.

--
Americans have learned that too.
That's why they disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation by a wide majority now.
--------------------------------

Source
--

NBC Nightly News, yesterday

--
Get over yourself. If you wish Saddam were not deposed based on the threat that his possession of WMD and his links with terrorism presented based soley on the fact that he didn't YET have any WMD ( just plans to get em ) then I think your support for the war was mighty thin
--

a) I didn't say I didn't want him removed. But he was less dangerous to the US than Al-Zarkawi, you uninformed fool.
b) Saddam did not have ANY links to Al Qaeda whatsoever. That is a fact.
c) He didn't have those 'plans for WMD' your uninformed prez always keeps talking about, that's a LIE. He didn't have ANY capabilities left.

And for the less intelligent: That does not mean I liked Saddam. *sorry*

@BMN

'That is a FUCKING LIE. Sorry, I was in Italy and Germany in 1999 during the Kosovo war. 1,000,000 gathered in Rome shouting Clinton's a murderer, etc...so give me a goddamn break, Robert.

...

So please, Robert--stop lying. Europeans hated America then--that they hate it now more surprises me not at all. But you know what? We stopped caring awhile back.'

It should be clear that I obviously cannot speak for every single European, can I.
So there will be some which do hate you, that's true. I also said that in one of my posts.

But a million people (out of 400 million) protesting against a war does not mean that those people HATE AMERICA. Some will. But not every pacifist. As you said it yourself, they protested against CLINTON. Not against ordinary Americans. Why should they?

You need to get over this 'They critisize the US = They hate the US' thing.
Begins to sound cry-baby-ish.

Sorry. Forgot to enter the name.

As you said it yourself, they protested against CLINTON.

Robert, you're INCREDIBLY disingenuous. I said no such thing. Do you actually believe that the 1999 protests didn't feature continuous denunciations of the "American Empire," pictures of Uncle Sam as a vampire, posters saying "Jugoslavia ci ha insegnato" with a picture of a downed US airplane, etc? Do you think the protest in Rome was the only one in Europe? It wasn't--it was the only one I attended personally, however. Of course Mitterand is just one man, too, right?

But keep living in your dream world. Has your welfare check showed up yet?

But I freakin' said that there are people who hate you! What do you want to hear?
But it's not as easy as 'Germans are anti-American' or 'Europeans are anti-American' because that is simply not the case.

Can you grasp the difference between anti-American and anti-US-policy? Is it that hard?

And about that:
'Has your welfare check showed up yet?'

Oh please.
Is that the level on which you operate? You really think insulting people who're of a different opinion is gonna get you loved all over the world?

Robert, you are outright lying. Bush did not ask Clarke to make evidence up of whether Saddam was involved or not in 9/11. He asked to determine whether it was so. And Clarke himself expressed concerns about ties between Saddam and bin Laden during the Clinton administration. And today we know that Zarqawi was deliberately sheltered by Saddam before the war despite repeated requests for his extradition by the Jordanian government. Zarqawi of course trained in jihadi camps in Afghanistan, and today no doubt exists that Zarqawi works under the umbrella of al Qaeda.

Where did you get that crap from? FOX?

Because it's just not true.

Clark himself said it the way i described it. Read his book.

Zarkawi was in Iraq before the war, right.
I don't know where you get the 'deliberately sheltered by Saddam' from ...

You people don't even understand the differences between the secular, socialist Baath Party of Saddam and the Wahhabi Islam of Bin Laden cause if you did, you'd understand that Bin Laden DESPISED Saddam for his 'godless' regime ...

So don't YOU tell me I'm lying when all you can is repeat your party's propaganda.

And about Zarkawi:

He's worse than Saddam, right? He's killed more Americans, hasn't he?

And now he's running the agenda over there thanks to Mr Bush's kind recruiting efforts ...

Can you grasp the difference between anti-American and anti-US-policy? Is it that hard?

Sorry, but Germans don't simply hate US govt policy, they hate American society.

Anyway when are the Germans' going to apologize for providing chemical weapons expertise to Saddam. The Kurds' blood are on German hands.

> Sorry, but Germans don't simply hate US govt policy, they hate American society.

Oh yeah, it's simple as that. What a bunch of BS. How many Germans do you know to come to such a stupid conclusion?

And about that apologizin' business: Who is 'the Germans'?
I know I didn't provide Saddam with chemical weapons. I don't know anyone personally who did.
Sure enough some German firm provided grenades which is a shame. But that's not 'the Germans'.

Do you know who provided Saddam with biological weapons?
You're own dear Mr Rumsfeld in 1983.
The US governmernt (not 'the Americans') propped up Saddam with arms so he could defeat Iran.
Saddam was a good friend of the US, back then.

You forgot that, didn't ya.

Is Jason back posting with a new name and IP?

Clark himself said it the way i described it. Read his book.

Just because Clarke said something in his book, it doesn't mean he was telling the truth either. Clarke had been passed over for higher level positions in the Bush administration and was angling for a high level position in a Democratic administration, and putting out a Bush bashing book that gives Democrats talking points is a way of currying favor with Democratic presidential candidates. Joseph Wilson also attempted to do the same thing when he wrote his little Op-Ed piece, but his book that he put out later actually refuted what he said. Moreover he became something of a joke, and disappeared from the Kerry foreign policy advisers list.


Here are today's articles about Saddam sheltering Zarqawi:


You people don't even understand the differences between the secular, socialist Baath Party of Saddam and the Wahhabi Islam of Bin Laden cause if you did, you'd understand that Bin Laden DESPISED Saddam for his 'godless' regime ...

If they were so secular, why did they discriminate against Shi'ites? In truth, during the 90s after the Gulf War the Ba'ath party started to appeal to more religious Sunni's to strengthen their tenuous hold on power. That's why the religous scribblings on the Iraqi flag were added during the 90s. That's why Saddam had the Koran written in 3 pints of his own blood and placed in Mother Of All Battles mosque that Saddam built in Baghdad. Saddam couldn't hope to maintain power without signficant support among Sunni's. Moreover, Saddam's second in command did push for alliances with Sunni Islamists.

You can close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, but Saddam, while not being particularly religious himself, was perfectly willing to use religion and support religiously motivated terrorists if it served his own purposes.

Now I have never argued that Saddam had direct involvement or knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 was operated as covert operation on a need to know basis by bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, it is likely that Saddam found ways to assist al Qaeda, mostly likely through covert financial assistance. It is far too easy to move money around in the Middle East undetected, and the circumvention of safeguards in the Oil-for-Food program gave Saddam plenty of access to hard currency. We know he used such funds for indirect support of terrorism when he paid for benefits for suicide bombers' families, for example. What else that money has gone for besides paying for a massive conventional weapons program and for bribing UN officials, Arab journalists, and politicians in Europe, Russia and China is an open question.

Now you ask, why would Saddam support al Qaeda covertly? If you are capable of strategic thought and analysis you would recognize that there was signficant alignment between al Qaeda's short term tactical goals and Saddam's goals. al Qaeda primary goal was getting the US out of the Middle East and the ending containment of Iraq, according to their fatwa/manifesto. It attacked US bases, ships, and personnel taking part in containment. It attacked US embassies, and attempted to attack the US directly even prior to 9/11. The US could avoid future attacks by giving up on the containment of Iraq and withdrawing. But that would allow Saddam to rearm unhindered, which would create greater problems down the road, which creates a classic catch-22. Protect yourself and your allies from Saddam, or protect yourself from al Qaeda and abandon your allies and those you protect.

Do you know who provided Saddam with biological weapons?
You're own dear Mr Rumsfeld in 1983.
The US governmernt (not 'the Americans') propped up Saddam with arms so he could defeat Iran.
Saddam was a good friend of the US, back then.

This is an outright lie. The US did not sell arms to Iraq until near the end of the war, when it sold some transport helicopters. The US did not sell biological weapons to Iraq. Iraq did get Anthrax samples from the American Type Culture collection which is a clearinghouse for research supplies like cancer cell lines, gene clones, bacterial strains, etc for researchers in the US and all over the world. The sum of money involved was inconsequential, and the primary reason that Iraq was able to get it was because of lax safeguards in the US. The primary assistance that the US gave to Iraq was intelligence from satellite reconaissance. The US and Iraq did not have a good relationship during the 70s and did not maintain diplomatic relations for much of that time. Iraq sponsored many terrorists that attacked the US, so the possibility for a good relationship between Iraq and the US was limited because of mutual distrust. But the US didn't want Iran to win, so they provided just enough intelligence to help Iraq to draw Iran into a stalemate using the weapons provided by other countries.

On the other hand conventional weapons were sold to Iraq by the French, Russians, China and many Eastern European nations. Chemical weapons technology was provided by the German companies. German companies built the facilities to manufacture chemical weapons. The US and British governments warned Germany about this, but the German goverment looked the other way.

Whoops, the links to the Zarqawi article didn't show up. Here they are again

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4576177

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wozarq0520,0,4429126.story?coll=ny-top-headlines


1. There are always the same arguments in the end it´s the pro and con about iraq and the middle east.

2. The germans ( including me) opposes the war and came to the decision that the argumantation of the bush administration was a little bit weak ( friendly spoken). A majority of americans supported their administration in this war against Iraq.

So be it it´s just a different oppinion. We can not hinder the US to invade countries. it´s their decision to do so and as long as my country is not a part of this mess called iraq or any other war they might want to fight in the name of what ever no problem for me.

3. We have other duties and other chalanges ahead. We have to build europe. Someone wrote here that Europe is not the world but should we waste our time, money and blood to become as hated as the US in the world. I belive we can do better and should try to do something positive in this world. The future will tell who is right but at the moment i belive there will be the same result as we have seen with the WMD in Iraq. A integrated EU can be a different model to the wolrd than the patriotic selfish old fashioned national state called US.

Anti Americanism goes WAAAAYYYYY back.. even before George Bush..
David/Ray - Do you give 'Idiot comment of the thread' awards? This one wins hands down.

We all do believe in those great polls, do we? This discussion is about the article above, it is? So I quote:

while 48 % identified the US as "Germany's best friend"

Every second person here thought the US was the best friend of Germany (note the different usage of the term "best friend" in German/English). Compare this to the current 15%.

Also, not that I never said that we there would not be any Anti-Americanism without GWB. I said we would not have this discussion here. That is, in my book, something completely different.

@Peter

The creation of the EU, the stability and much of the growth in Europe can be thankfully attributed to the US.

Selfish? Without NATO, the Marshall Plan and security that we spent for the last 60 years, I'm certain Europe would have decayed into it's atavistic behavior: wars, defeat, diplomacy, colinization, wars, etc, etc. More people have been killed in wars on the European continent than anywhere elese in the world.

Yes, Europe diplomacy likes thinks itself as a viable alternative to the Bush's US. But, I honestly question the veracity in such statements, they are based on little proven history. One only need look at their failures in Bosnia and Kosovo and more recently in Iran and Europe's shameless in-ability to recognise Darfur as genocide. I really sometimes wonder what Europe is thinking to achive in this thin veneer of statesmanship? I think that it's generous of you to consider European diplomacy as an alternative: Iran is laughing at you, Darfurians are dead and crying...

The US has always been an economic powerhouse relative to the rest of the world. Additionally, it has always been a beneficial force in Europe, forgeting not that America has it's origins in the European enlightenment. So, the US is a European country, only it was able to preserve Lockean thought in 18th centry enlightenment whilst Europe experimented with Rossou and Marx.

What Schröder and Chirac attempt to acheive is to lessen America's powers by proping up challengers to her hegemony. This I find them to be playing with fire, by selling the Chineese weapons they are destroying the very elements which you claim that they are supporting (force for good). You cannot deny that they are being hypocritical in this endevor. Who will defend Tiawan? You? With what Navy?

As the US helped Europe with Nato, it also helped countries like Japan, Korea, Thialand and Taiwan in staving off Soviet agression. Although you may not have recent historical (the pase 60 years) ties in Asia, you must recoginse them as stabile supporters of democray. Please don't shit on our achievments there, a lot of Americans died defending and building it. After all, you do belive in democracy right?

I sometimes get the feeling that the US has become the big-brother on all issue international, particularily in Europe. Europe is so dependant on the US, and the US has been too happy to historically help them, that their current behavior is like the teenagers that get their parents car and drive to the mall all-the-while declaring their independance as they pass other girls by.

@James - Although I'm critical of the current US administration this does not mean I'm anti-American nor that I don't see the good the US has done.

I also critisize the EU and German government a LOT because of so many things ...

There's no question that I'll always be thankful to the US for giving me the opportunity to grow up in peace and freedom.

But does that mean I must NEVER EVER critisize the current US government if I see that it is acting wrongly?

I don't want to see the US fail in Iraq.

But that's what's currently happening.
Terror attacks are way up the past two years.
Terrorist recruitment is up.
Afghanistan is falling apart again.

Where's Bin Laden?

The president is always invoking 9/11, alright, but where is the guy who perpetrated it?

Instead American soldiers are bleeding to death in Iraq - for what? So that Cheney and
his fellows can get even richer? You need to ask: Cui bono?

Also: If you're so right, why is it that you almost don't have any more allies helping
you over there? Are the Britons anti-American too? Two thirds of them oppose this war.

Some of you are so blinded by right-wing propaganda that you attack anyone critisizing the administration.

Well being able to be critisizing the administration once was a fundamental American thing.

But even if German-bashing and French-bashing continues on blogs like this one and on FOX,
there will come a time of healing ... starting with the mid-term elections ... seen some polls
lately? :D

After the Bush era there will be time for mutual understanding again ...

As i said history will tell.

The US foreign policy after the second world war did what they felt was in the interest of the US. Nothing more nothing less. The same is the case today with the war in iraq. The middle east is a strategic important region as europe was 60 years ago.
It is fear that guides often the way of us foreign policy. First it was comunism with the famous domino theory in the end now it is islamic terror.

I don´t belive that the present policy servs the interest of the US in the long run but as written it´s not my or our buisness.
You still live in the past and in the thinking of the past. Europe does not want to chalange anyone.

In what way the US is a hegemony and what real power the US has that would be a good question. Iran is a good example. What are the options or the strategy of the US on the iran issue. Why does the US let the europeans negotiate with the iranians if it is useless?

In what way are we dependant on the US?

The european union is a evolutionary process and the growing power can be seen at the borders of the EU. In the middle east, nothern africa Russia etc. even is or will the EU be the most important partner. it´s a total different concept to the military bases and power of the US.

@Robert,

I apprechiate your comments, and your early support of the Iraq war. I separate you from the many Germans and Euros who, in this time of anti-Americanism, convienently like to airbrush American sacrifices and participation in the creation of a prosperous and stabile Europe. I'm sure that there is much that we would find in common and like about one-another.

One CAN question the wisdom of invading Iraq, in a similar fashion as I question Clinton's acceptance of China into the WTO without discussion of human rights and Schröder's interest in selling the Chineese weapons. I wonder myself about the wisdom of pulling off much of the US intellegence services directed at finishing-off the Taliban and al Queda. Undoubtably, this has been a significant distraction from achieving the goal of finishing off the man called Osama. Whilst he maybe the leader of the organisation, I also recognise that this is a psudeo-religion that must be challenged everywere it has spread to:like a cancer.

The soure of this cancer has been the Saudi and Pakistani governments. After 9/11, Pakistan played along with US desires, as did Russia and India, but not the Saudis: they were in complete denial about their (in)direct involvement in the wahabi/al queda movement and "charitable" financing thereof. It was around this time of Saudi denial, that the Iraq invasion plan began to have merit. If the Saudi wouldn't get along with fighting terrorism, then perhaps the US miltary at their doorsteps would give them a helping hand. Several years later, I think that one could argue, and quite well, that the Saudis have now confessed to a terrorism problem and are fighting it fairly agressively (but I think they also use it to their advantage to help create a percieved oil crisis and drive up the price).

Al Queda is a formidable terrorist organisation which has many cells all over the world. Al-Zarkawi is just one of them who opperates independantly in a very distabilised environment, after all Iraq is not France or the USA for that matter. However, wether Al Quedism is on the rise, is certainly not clear. I'm sure that this "war" will wax and wane for many years to come. Nor will the US ever leave Iraq in the next 5 years, but that's just my prediction. Europe and the American citizenry had better get used to this, the stockmarkets already have.

@Peter

You still live in the past and in the thinking of the past. Europe does not want to chalange anyone.

I'm not so sure that I live in the past, as much as in reality (no insult to your views). Like you, I just write what I think to be a best description of the facts at hand: Occum's Razor if you will.

You may acidly think that America helped Germany because it was helping itself, but I don't remember it that way. I grew up in the time of Reagan who had great influence over my thinking: I recall a sense of "duty" in helping the Germans in defending freedom, envisioning a free Poland and a fall of the Soviet Union. I can best explain my feeling on this subject with and example: America never stood opposed to the reunification of Germany (tear down this wall), whilst several European countries were opposed to it including cold war Thatcher.

Schröder's short sighted interest in feeding a china with weapons is a de facto policy adoped to help in proping up exports as his domestic agenda is terrible and reform is anemic. Such diplomatic manuvers don't bode well for the future, with 12% unemployment, fiscal tightening, aging population: I really wonder what kind of fantastic ideas German leadership is capable in the future. But then again, this is just my view: I own my own GmbH and belive stongly in Yankee capitalism. Proudly, I confess to you that I am a locust.

Why does the US let the europeans negotiate with the iranians if it is useless?

This is obvious. The USA lets them fail to allow the Europeans to discredit themselves.

it´s a total different concept to the military bases and power of the US.

I know, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The US has both soft and hard power. Re-consider Iran for a moment, if Iran knows that you only will attempt actions with soft power, they are not going to budge.

I sense that you convienently forget your European history and van Clausowitz.

@Rober and Peter

Where is Radovan Karadic? What policies has Europe implemented to help in retrieving the genoncidal General?

@james

"This is obvious. The USA lets them fail to allow the Europeans to discredit themselves"

Impressiv argumetation. In the end the only option for the Us would be to use military force because they could not even negotiate with the iranians even if they wanted to.
At the present situation of the US army a very attractiv outlook looking at the problems in Iraq. If the US has soft power and there is no doubt about that she is not very good in using it or wouldn´t you agree there.

"I sense that you convienently forget your European history and van Clausowitz."

Von Clausewitz is more than 150 years dead now and the state Prussia he served does not even exist anymore. Although his paradigma of the Primat der Politik is still right and perhabs even more today.


"I know, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

Perhabs but in the end only the result counts and i am not quite sure if von Clausewitz would have seen the war in iraq as a good choice to serve any politicle goals.


Where is Radovan Karadic? What policies has Europe implemented to help in retrieving the genoncidal General?

You got the military potential to fight that war. That´s why i strongly support a common european army and defence policy. Europe needs to combine its forces but it will be another hard politicle battle because this will be the end of NATO.
But while you can fight wars.
The EU could present the future for these nations on the Balkan and all states there change their policy and agree to common european law and rules to become a EU member or even made it into the EU like Slovenia.

@Robert,

If the US has soft power and there is no doubt about that she is not very good in using it or wouldn´t you agree there.

Libya?

Von Clausewitz is more than 150 years dead now and the state Prussia he served does not even exist anymore. Although his paradigma of the Primat der Politik is still right and perhabs even more today.

I think that human nature is immutable. Immutable as the teachings of: Lau Tze, Confucius, Machiavelli, Alfred Mahan, Marcus Aueralius, etc.

Perhabs but in the end only the result counts and i am not quite sure if von Clausewitz would have seen the war in iraq as a good choice to serve any politicle goals.

I've already described to you the latent reasons behind the Bush Administration's decision to go into Iraq. It wasn't about WMD or building democracy. It was about changing the behaviour of the Saudis. The former are badly sold reasons as casus belli.

The EU could present the future for these nations on the Balkan and all states there change their policy and agree to common european law and rules to become a EU member or even made it into the EU like Slovenia.

Agreed. You may not belive it, but I'm a big supporter of the EU. But the open question remains, at what point do you stop trying soft power and use the only option available to you: hard power. When will Radovic be captured?


"The memory of the National Socialist era, of war, genocide and infamy, has become part of our national identity. It has left us with an abiding moral and political duty."
--Schröder Sun, 04/10/2005

Robert,

Well maybe there will be and maybe there will not be a time for mutual understanding, WETFTI.

I, however, would not count on it. There is a possiblity that VP Cheney might run for POTUS. If that should happen and he should win, then I think the euro's will once again be disappointed.

Robert: "People here don't hate the US at all - they do not like your current administration!!"

Robert, that is so not true! I moved to Germany in 1979, and was there during the Carter and Reagan administrations. The depth and breadth of anti-americanism was mind-boggling back then too. I was constantly harangued about how stupid/ugly/fat/uncultured/expoitative etc Americans were. It was intensely personal, rarely political. Many people just hated Americans. They would say these things to my face, even though I was anything but those things mentioned. They would say those things even though I loved Germany, spoke fluent German (and French), and was trying my best to fit in.

The only people who were nice to me on a consistent basis were the older generations, who had been through hell and back, and who knew the real score, as well as the Vertriebene.

I think the younger generations have been brain-washed by the media, and I think that is very sad. I do agree it is indeed possible to be an independent thinker and against Americans, but not when just about every single German, all 80 million or so plus think this way. That is group-think.

Joan,

stupid/ugly/fat/uncultured/exploitative

I could not help but smile as I read your post, which contained the above comment.

If the Germans were at all self-critical or self-analytical they might be asking themselves how can a people who are stupid, ugly, fat, uncultured, exploitative be so superior to them in accomplishments in any measure one wants to select for comparison.

They sound very much like the Kerry camp after the last election. How could someone so stupid as GWB beat Kerry?

Like the demo’s they are actually asking the wrong question. I however am not sure just what question the Germans should be asking themselves.

There is one question the elected leaders in Euroland and their elites are unwilling to ask their citizens. This question is, Are Europeans (Germans) simply willing to accept inferior economic performance and a declining standard of living for the economic security of the European “model”.

Of course, no one wants to admit this is the choice the future holds but at some point it will become apparent even to the smart, beautiful, slim, fit, cultured, principled citizens of Germany.

What will be interesting is to see who asks this question first, the elites or the people and which political party will lead this question and answer session.

In reality it is just much easier to agree with them most of the time than it is to do anything else. Then one can just set back and watch their never-ending hypocrisy and measure the results of their performance and be amused with their rationalizations.

@James - the comment before your last one was from Peter, not me. I agree with your points about when to use 'soft' or 'hard power' - I think that sometimes there's just no other way.

@Joan - I believe you, and I also said it above that there ARE morons who do HATE Americans.
But you just can't generalize. Many of you complain how people who're anti-American do generalize
yet some of you are doing just the same thing when you talk about 'the Germans'.

There's no such thing - it's no homogenous group, just like 'the Americans' aren't.

You do realize how very polarized the US is ATM?
One half loves W, the other half almost hates him.
You wouldn't say the Democrats are anti-American, would you ... well I know some of you would, but that is not very intelligent, democratic, pluralistic either.

@Joe - I do agree with your assessment of Europe's future ... With continued expansion of the EU we will crumble ... and I can already hear types like that dork Hannity expressing 'Schadenfreude' ... now is that any better behaviour than anti-Americanism?

I've heard Americans (some!) insult, ridicule, bash my country ... is that behaviour any better?

I tell you, I don't like any of it.

It's sad what has become of this once great relationship ...

Robert,

I am not sure I know of anyone who actually hates GWB.

That is not to say there are not some on the extremes of the demos and that word might be accurate to descrbe their feelings and emotions and in fact it could be hate.

Of course, to me that says more about those people than it does about GWB or for that matter any other person.

Robert do you hate anyone?

I asked this because I do not? I was wondering if you did and if so would you share with us why you hate that person.

I would say "hate" is just too strong of a word.

As I have said before somewhere this gets lost in translation.

It might be more apporiate to say at any given point in time, a percentage of Americans disagree with GWB. That percentage can be anywhere from 30% to 55%.

Of course that is also the normal range of disagreement on most things in the US.

I would just be careful using "hate" to describe anything.

I would agree with you about 'hate' being too strong a word.

I personally don't hate anyone.

But do you really think that everyone opposed to W in the US merely only 'disagrees' with him?

And why do people always speak of Germans HATING the US if we would agree that the word 'hate' is too strong?

Robert,

Sure there are those who not only disagree with GWB but a few actually hate him.

Of course, this same few, and there are more of these on the left than right but there are some on the right too, hate everything.

What I should have asked you and gone even farther was to ask you if you have ever hated anyone and if so how long did that hate actually last. What did you do about it? Did it over time make you feel better? Did it accomplish anything?

When some one uses the word hate, I usually find them to be both shallow and intellectually lazy. They have positions or opinions or beliefs, which they cannot support with any form of logic.

I have often wanted to ask those people who say they hate GWB just what do they hate?

Is it the man himself? If it is, what is it about him they do not like. Would it be equally safe to say that all those people in the world who have the same characteristics they find in GWB to hate would also be hated for the same reason?

Is it what he stands for? If so what ideals and principles do they disagree with and why.

It is like me saying I hate Gerhard because he is short, vane, is less than truthful and is an opportunist who has the morals of an alley cat jumping in and out bed faster than a youthful Joschka could hurl firebombs at the police.

Since I have never met the man, I have no personal knowledge of him. What I do have knowledge of is the positions he has taken. Those I disagree with and do not feel they serve either Germany or the West particularly well. Of course, again this is an internal German affair. It is something the Germans must decide for themselves.

All I can say is there seems to be another page turning in German history. Time will tell what will both be written and what the world will read on this new page.

I for one hope it has lots of good things for the German people and gives them a bright future.

Robert,

The last group of people I would be concerned about is the reaction of someone who is not German. I do not think as much as the demo’s wanted to make an issue of the US not being supported by our “so called allies”, the American people did not consider that in electing the current POTUS.

I would hope Germans would react the same in whatever course they choice for their future. The reality is it is your future and the future of your fellow citizens which we are talking about and that should be decided by you and no one else.

That last part is a bit fuzzy in my own mind, as you have to toss in what the EU is doing and not doing. It is difficult for an American to understand this desire to cede sovereignty to someone else. That is one of the many differences between Germans and Americans, which are often overlooked.

I do not think whether the EU is 26 nations or 46 nations matters in the long run. I think the most fundamental questions have to be addressed. Right now those are not being addressed either in Brussels or Berlin.

Even if they are addressed and a nation does not like the outcome, then a special side deal is cut for that nation to bring them along with the group.

When the EU was primarily a trading block, it was a good idea. As it has expanded it becomes just another detached bureaucratic organization distant from the people.

As an example, I have been following with interest the various ratification campaigns for the EU constitution. I find them to be very funny because of how various nations and various groups view what the EU constitution means. It is as if there is more than one of these constitutions that people are preparing to vote on.


Why do you bother with Robert/Jason/Dovehunter - whatever his name is today

The questionw as asked and ignored - its the same question I ask ALL of the "of course its great Saddam is gone but I opposed the war because ___________" folks

The question is - What was the root cause of 9-11


The answer is quite illustrative - thats why they ( and I think the plural is correct here :) ) never answer it

@poguemahone

No. The plural is not correct.

I am NOT Jason nor Dovehunter, I don't know who they are.

Well you complain about me not having answered your question about 9/11 - you didn't answer any of my questions but instead keep insulting me ... very good argumentational skills indeed ...

I will give you a quick summary anyway ...

There are many contributing factors to why 9/11 happened ...

- mainly because of a radical Islamic leader called Osama Bin Laden (not Saddam Hussein), who tried to cumulate growing feelings of anger among Arabs about what they see as being suppressed by US Armed Forces presence in what they perceive to be their holy soil. Bin Laden wants to be a saviour to the Ummah (the Arab Nation) and tries to achieve that goal by attacking what that very Ummah sees as its greatest threat, which is the US (which is not my opinion, just that you GET it ...)
Also, some radical Islamic factions do want to establish a 'Kalifath', even in the western world, which means that this is a real threat we face together.

- secondly a reaction to decades of reckless interventions by US administrations by means of more or less covert CIA operations and/or wars that only seemed to serve(or 'served' in the eyes of the respective enemy) US interest. If you really dispute that you don't have ANY idea about what your governments did in other countries in the past and what kind of feelings resulted from it. It is a FACT. That does not mean I'm for or against those interventions ...

- total failure of the Bush administration in preventing the attacks. "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" (using airplanes) was the title of a now famous PDB BEFORE the attacks. He blew it.

There's more, but that's all I have time for since there's an election coming soon in my country and I'm gonna watch some political broadcasts on German Television right now ... ;)


---

I told you I was for the war. I would still be, if

- it would have been thoroughly planned (e. g. the post-war scenarios)

- there would have been enough boots on the ground and they woulda been sufficiently propped up

- Iraq would not get a RADICAL ISLAMIC government, which is what is going to happen now ... Sharia is the opposite of freedom!

- the US administration would not have LIED to everyone about WMD and a threat that wasn't there. They should have done it for humanitarian reasons - which they could have done earlier and, if we're honest, doesn't serve US national interest and is therefore NOT a reason.

---

How about answering just ONE of my questions:

WHAT INTELLIGENCE?

:D

... was there proving Iraq had WMD?

(Just to make it clear to you ... ;) )

Robert,

I'll answer your WMD question with a question. How can you criticise Bush's claim that Hussien had WMD whilst your government ALSO agreed that Hussien had WMD? As did the French, British, Russian, etc, etc...

Additionally, Hussien had claimed to UN inspectors that he hadn't anymore weapons until his son in law defected to Jordan and revealed the clandestine nuclear bomb project. So, Saddam had cried wolf too often for anyone to take seriously in my book. The proof was on Saddam.

Futermore:

- it would have been thoroughly planned (e. g. the post-war scenarios)

How?

- there would have been enough boots on the ground and they woulda been sufficiently propped up

Comfortable position on your part. I was for the war, we didn't participate or have to pay. But you American should be spending more money, you're doing it all wrong! Can I use the example of HD Genscher's folly in recognising Slovenia and heling to start the war in Bosnia? Recall how Germany abdicated itself of futher responsibility? I see similarities...

- Iraq would not get a RADICAL ISLAMIC government, which is what is going to happen now ... Sharia is the opposite of freedom!

Hmmm. I recall that demcratic turnout was about 60% of registered voters, whilst NRW just had 64% turnout... Additinally, if you feel strongly about this, why not stand with the Americans and British (as we stood with you in Berlin) in supporting a fledgling democracy in Iraq?

- the US administration would not have LIED to everyone about WMD and a threat that wasn't there. They should have done it for humanitarian reasons - which they could have done earlier and, if we're honest, doesn't serve US national interest and is therefore NOT a reason.

Please read several of Bush's and Blair's speaches before the invasion. I will not bother to provide you with such an obvious historical fact, please go google for it. I think that you maybe surprised in finding that they did claim humanitarian issues quite strongly...

In short, much of your understanding on this issue has been eclipsed by the MSM in Germany. I suggest you question everything and read direct sources on your own questions. Have a read of Bush's speeches...

How about answering just ONE of my questions

BE glad to

Well you complain about me not having answered your question about 9/11 - you didn't answer any of my questions but instead keep insulting me ... very good argumentational skills indeed ...

IF you answer I am glad to

I will give you a quick summary anyway ...

There are many contributing factors to why 9/11 happened ...

- mainly because of a radical Islamic leader called Osama Bin Laden (not Saddam Hussein),

( DID you catch Howard Dean on TV yesterday - he said TWICE "there is no proof OBL was behind 9/11" of course me meant Saddam - it was just a slip of the tongue Of course you haven't heard about it...but if Bush said it - proof he is stoopid right )

who tried to cumulate growing feelings of anger among Arabs about what they see as being suppressed by US Armed Forces presence in what they perceive to be their holy soil. Bin Laden wants to be a saviour to the Ummah (the Arab Nation) and tries to achieve that goal by attacking what that very Ummah sees as its greatest threat, which is the US (which is not my opinion, just that you GET it ...)
Also, some radical Islamic factions do want to establish a 'Kalifath', even in the western world, which means that this is a real threat we face together.

PRETTY good imho - you managed to list the number 1 thing correctly 10 points :)

- secondly a reaction to decades of reckless interventions by US administrations by means of more or less covert CIA operations and/or wars that only seemed to serve(or 'served' in the eyes of the respective enemy) US interest. If you really dispute that you don't have ANY idea about what your governments did in other countries in the past and what kind of feelings resulted from it. It is a FACT. That does not mean I'm for or against those interventions ...

GOOD again - although I would appreciate your listing the "reckless interventions" you approved of and don't approve of


- total failure of the Bush administration in preventing the attacks. "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" (using airplanes) was the title of a now famous PDB BEFORE the attacks. He blew it.

ONE of many warnings - and did Clinton "blow it" by failing to react to repeated actual ATTACKS on US citizens and interests by OBL before 9-11?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have done more in his 8 months - I just think Clinton should have done more in his 8 YEARS
Add the fact that lame-duck Clinton could have taken real action - while newbie Rebublican cowboy Bush - just IMAGINE if he went after OBL for real in March 2001 after the years of "peace" under Clinton
Frankly I don't think there would have been much support for either one doing anything - and its just timing that it happened on 9/11/01 instead of 9/11/00 - I am honest enough to say this and I don't need to bash Clinton - can you do the same?


---

I told you I was for the war. I would still be, if

- it would have been thoroughly planned (e. g. the post-war scenarios)

WHAT did your plan look like? Would anything bad have happened?

- there would have been enough boots on the ground and they woulda been sufficiently propped up

AGAIN- how many "boots" would be a good idea? And if there are too few boots - and you supported the war as you constantly remind us all - do you think German boots should have been sent in some proportionate number? Would 50,000 German troops be about right?

- Iraq would not get a RADICAL ISLAMIC government, which is what is going to happen now ... Sharia is the opposite of freedom!

BIGGEST LOAD OF BS What source do you have that supports this opinion? Your saying Iraq is going to become a radical islamic state - can you find ANYONE of any knowledge who agrees with you?

- the US administration would not have LIED to everyone about WMD and a threat that wasn't there. They should have done it for humanitarian reasons - which they could have done earlier and, if we're honest, doesn't serve US national interest and is therefore NOT a reason.


AH - AND THERE WE HAVE IT The US can send its young men and women to be killed and maimed in the effort to oust a monster like Saddam - but ONLY if it is done out of pure altruism will you approve of the action
No German troops will be sent anyway
And such an action can only be morally ok if:
There is NO, ZERO, NADA political or economic self interest that comes from any such operation

Well pardon me if I suggest you shove it - nobody cares about your hypocrisy

Your standards are ridiculous - and I note you don't suggest sending any German boots to Darfur for a similar purpose

Its actually typical leftist idiocy you are spouting - you would hypothetically support some kind of action against a Saddam - but only for pure humanitarian purpose - you think I believe this?

Yet at the same time I don't see you supporting ANY action ANYWHERE - for ANY purpose

In order to save time I'll add Roberts response

"bbbbut Bush LIED"

@poguemahone

> Your standards are ridiculous - and I note you don't suggest sending any German boots to Darfur for a similar purpose

You keep putting words into my mouth while you know NOTHING about what I think ...
... I actually think we should intervene in Darfur.

I don't give a rat's ass about whether you believe me or not.
You don't even try to understand what I write, you only try to fit me into your stupid little right-left world view.

And that:

> Your saying Iraq is going to become a radical islamic state - can you find ANYONE of any knowledge who agrees with you?

Shows that you don't know SHIT about the Middle East and especially Iraq.
More than two thirds of Iraqis are Shiite, a _very_ passionate muslim faction (Iran-style).
The Sharia is going to be the law of the land. You know what that is?

What was a progressive, secular state becomes yet another Theocracy.

If you knew anything, you'd understand that, but since you're only able to insult in your arrogant state of mind obviously you can't.

> In order to save time I'll add Roberts response
>
> "bbbbut Bush LIED"

So childish ...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30