Osama

[catamaran]

I pray that your wink means that you are joking....

not there is anything "wrong" with Monica as a woman, it's just Bill was President! didn't he learn from that Paula thing? talk about yikes! it's catty i know, it's just if it were Hill instead of Bill having circus sex in the White House, she better pick Brad Pitt or some hottie like that. otherwise she'd be a joke forever, just like Bill is now.

sorry off thread.

oh, does your momma know about your "hummer" comments I never want to hear that reference come from my son

Why not, all little boys like big trucks

[catatac]

If Bush is the right man for the job then why are we fighting a war based on a lie his department told america? Also why is America hated all across the globe? Critical of Clinton's foreign policy? What about Bush's?

This week some friends of mine were in Canada for a skiing trip, and had some people turn and walk away from them once they said they were from the states. It happened just one night, but if people in Canada won't even talk to you b/c you're an American what does that say about your countries foreign policy?

I had a few other friends go to Austrailia, same thing, execpt more frequently, they were treated poorly on a regular basis b/c of their accent (which made if obvious where they were from). When they got back to the states they were telling us about it and one of us (who is an African American) said, "Now you know what it feels like to me a minority in America."

We're not exactly hated all across the globe, and for the countries that do hate us - it's hardly because of Bush. I was in Australia for 2 weeks in 1995 and was treated poorly then...

[briannell]

Why not, all little boys like big trucks

yep and that better be the ONLY hummer i ever hear my boy talking about

can we just skip from age 6 to 40, at that point I wont care what he does in his private life. heck I'll be too old to know what one still is at that point

[BWahlberg]

This week some friends of mine were in Canada for a skiing trip, and had some people turn and walk away from them once they said they were from the states. It happened just one night, but if people in Canada won't even talk to you b/c you're an American what does that say about your countries foreign policy?

What it says to me is that these particular Canadians are a-holes. Period.

Sorry to be flip about it, but if I mistreated a group of Iranian tourists in New York because I disagree with their country's politics, I would be branded a racist, among other things. What happened to your friends in Canada is no different. If that behavior is widespread in Canada, then it reflects more poorly on Canada than on the U.S., IMO.

Fact is, more and more countries and people around the world disagree with our tough guy attitude. Even our neighbors to the north. Most of the world (especially almost all of Europe) was really pulling for Kerry, I remember reading articles about how a lot of the world press was pushing for Kerry and not Bush.

Burning bridges never helped, what if in 15 years the Euro is worth twice as much as the US dollar and countries in Europe ran the way the world was run? France, Germany, and Italy playing the big brother instead. We keep pissing all over these guys, and in the future we could be setting ourselfs up to fall hard. The global economy is growing, and probably is the future, and we're just pissing off the world.

All a guess/speculation, I don't know what the future holds, and no I don't think we should just bend over and agree with the rest of the world all the time, I'm just saying that we're distancing ourselfs from countries and leaders we might need in the future.

[SonomaCat]

At very least, we can make sure not to start any wars despite their objections in the future. That should be a solid sign of goodwill on our part.

[Grizlaw]

Fact is, more and more countries and people around the world disagree with our tough guy attitude. Even our neighbors to the north. Most of the world (especially almost all of Europe) was really pulling for Kerry, I remember reading articles about how a lot of the world press was pushing for Kerry and not Bush.

Burning bridges never helped, what if in 15 years the Euro is worth twice as much as the US dollar and countries in Europe ran the way the world was run? France, Germany, and Italy playing the big brother instead. We keep pissing all over these guys, and in the future we could be setting ourselfs up to fall hard. The global economy is growing, and probably is the future, and we're just pissing off the world.

All a guess/speculation, I don't know what the future holds, and no I don't think we should just bend over and agree with the rest of the world all the time, I'm just saying that we're distancing ourselfs from countries and leaders we might need in the future.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I was just pointing out that it's ridiculous to treat others badly just because you disagree with their government. If we were on a Canadian chat board and a Canadian was telling a story about being treated badly by a group of Americans because they found out he was from Canada, everyone would be pointing at the incident as another example of American arrogance; yet somehow when a Canadian does the same to Americans, he's just expressing his disagreement with our government? I don't buy it; to me, the primary message is still that these guys are a-holes.

[SonomaCat]

Fact is, more and more countries and people around the world disagree with our tough guy attitude. Even our neighbors to the north. Most of the world (especially almost all of Europe) was really pulling for Kerry, I remember reading articles about how a lot of the world press was pushing for Kerry and not Bush.

Burning bridges never helped, what if in 15 years the Euro is worth twice as much as the US dollar and countries in Europe ran the way the world was run? France, Germany, and Italy playing the big brother instead. We keep pissing all over these guys, and in the future we could be setting ourselfs up to fall hard. The global economy is growing, and probably is the future, and we're just pissing off the world.

All a guess/speculation, I don't know what the future holds, and no I don't think we should just bend over and agree with the rest of the world all the time, I'm just saying that we're distancing ourselfs from countries and leaders we might need in the future.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I was just pointing out that it's ridiculous to treat others badly just because you disagree with their government. If we were on a Canadian chat board and a Canadian was telling a story about being treated badly by a group of Americans because they found out he was from Canada, everyone would be pointing at the incident as another example of American arrogance; yet somehow when a Canadian does the same to Americans, he's just expressing his disagreement with our government? I don't buy it; to me, the primary message is still that these guys are a-holes.

A little side story ... a few years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a proud Canadian, and we actually got into some pretty nasty arguments when she would start ripping on the U.S. (even though she wasn't all that up on anything relevant -- she was just repeating Canadian talking points that she heard from her friends). She also happened to be a bona fide psycho, so that always added an element of danger to these discussions.

Anyway, she would go on and on at length about how beloved Canadians were around the globe, and gloated about how they all had the Maple Leaf on their backpacks as a sign to the rest of the world to shower them with admiration that was owed to them due to their Canada-ness. Meanwhile, she talked about the backwards, arrogant, and xenophobic ugly Americans that were hated by everybody, and how we all wanted to be Canadians when we travelled. (Granted, some of this is sometimes true, but they can't do that to our pledges ... only WE can do that to our pledges!).

So one day I was reading a survey that was conducted throughout the world that asked people to describe which set of tourists was the most obnoxious. At number 1? CANADA! Apparently, their own self-loving and in your face Maple leafing was -- shock! -- annoying to the rest of the world!

Now I'm worked up ... when do you we get to invade Canada!

[BWahlberg]

Anyone hear the South Park song, "Blame Canada" ??

Funny stuff...

[SonomaCat]

Anyone hear the South Park song, "Blame Canada" ??

Funny stuff...

Yeah, I was gonna bust into a Terrance and Phillip conversation, but thought that might be a little self-indulgent on my part.

[Stevicat]

Interestingly, both Canada and Germany have recently voted conservative leaders into power. This tells me, amoung other things, that the people were not terribly happy with the US bashing their leaders were doing.

I was in Canada 8 months ago and spoke with several who expressed their frustration with their leadership how dissapointed they were with the US bashing. Granted, it was Calgary and not Quebec but it is interesting that a conservative Western Canadian won the election this week

[SonomaCat]

I think the conservatives are winning based on economic issues in those countries, in addition to a scandal in Canada that really hurt the image of the liberal party. I am quite sure that a majority of the people in those countries aren't voting based on favorable attitudes towards the U.S., except for any economic realities. I don't think any conservative leaders in those countries were exactly asking for Bush's endorsement to boost their numbers.

[Hell's Bells]

I think the conservatives are winning based on economic issues in those countries, in addition to a scandal in Canada that really hurt the image of the liberal party. I am quite sure that a majority of the people in those countries aren't voting based on favorable attitudes towards the U.S., except for any economic realities. I don't think any conservative leaders in those countries were exactly asking for Bush's endorsement to boost their numbers.

your right...the guy that got elected isnt exactly right winged but he is concervative when compaired with the former P.M btw both german and canadian candidates had to form cololations with other parties in order to get power

[ChiOCat]

I have a hard time with "all the other countries in the world hate us." Even if it's true. Why are they still taking our money?? When was the last time someone sent us monetary aid?

Just like a parent giving their kids money, it is with strings attached. If you don't like the strings, don't take the money. You don't want to go to MSU, don't take my money, etc.

I spent 8 weeks in Brazil on a start up. I had some very interesting conversations (yes, usually over beer). They all LOVE America, but hate that we march in, give money and expect them to do what we want. Yet, when I suggested they not take our money they were adament that they NEEDED it. True, but we're offering the money as 1) humanitarian aide and 2) because we want you to help us and be our friend when needed.

I wholeheartedly agree that we'd have been better off with Clinton in the White House on 9/11. He'd have had to take so many opinion polls, he'd have never been able to take action! Like Bush or not, it takes a strong person to say "you're either with us or your against us."

[SonomaCat]

I have a hard time with "all the other countries in the world hate us." Even if it's true. Why are they still taking our money?? When was the last time someone sent us monetary aid?

Just like a parent giving their kids money, it is with strings attached. If you don't like the strings, don't take the money. You don't want to go to MSU, don't take my money, etc.

I spent 8 weeks in Brazil on a start up. I had some very interesting conversations (yes, usually over beer). They all LOVE America, but hate that we march in, give money and expect them to do what we want. Yet, when I suggested they not take our money they were adament that they NEEDED it. True, but we're offering the money as 1) humanitarian aide and 2) because we want you to help us and be our friend when needed.

I wholeheartedly agree that we'd have been better off with Clinton in the White House on 9/11. He'd have had to take so many opinion polls, he'd have never been able to take action! Like Bush or not, it takes a strong person to say "you're either with us or your against us."

I have to disagree. It merely takes a person with a simplistic view of the world to say "You're with us or you're against us." It is possible to think in more nuanced fashion yet still be decisive. That line is a speechwriter's tool designed to look assertive and bold ... but when you pull away the swagger, there is no real substance to it, and certainly no cohesive strategy for truly defeating terrorism. In reality, our plan of demanding people to do what we want them to do (as suggested by that line) really isn't working out so well. It turns out that we really do need to cooperate with the world, as opposed to ordering the rest of the world to do what we want.

As to the foreign aid, I believe we are on the low end as a function of GDP of the developed countries in terms of our national giving. That's not a good thing or a bad thing in my mind, as there are lots of reasons for us to give or not give (most self-serving, as should be the case most of the time), but we aren't leading the pack in terms of how generous we are with the poorer countries.

[ChiOCat]

So we should cooperate with Chirac and Kofi?? Where would that get us?

[SonomaCat]

Well, for one, it might have allowed us to determine that ther were no WMD in Iraq without going to war. It might have also not emboldened Iran, who now no longer has to worry about an enemy in Iraq (as their people will now be essentially running Iraq as well).

All of this would have freed up our resources to finish the job in Afghanistan and focus our resources on tracking down and destroying the terrorists that we were supposed to be after in the first place.

Fighting wars alone kind of sucks, as we have found out the hard way. Cooperation is a good thing. And sometimes, if we listen to our allies, we might even learn a thing or two.

[ChiOCat]

How many years did we work with the UN to either find or verify there were no WPD in Iraq? If there were not, why would Sadam not let the inspectors in?

We were attacked on OUR SOIL. I do not think we need the worlds opinion or approval to find and get rid of the terroristst that did that, and are planning more. Just as we have no say in how the British should react after their attack, or the Spanish after theirs.

[SonomaCat]

How many years did we work with the UN to either find or verify there were no WPD in Iraq? If there were not, why would Sadam not let the inspectors in?

We were attacked on OUR SOIL. I do not think we need the worlds opinion or approval to find and get rid of the terroristst that did that, and are planning more. Just as we have no say in how the British should react after their attack, or the Spanish after theirs.

He did let the inspectors in. We took them out before we invaded. The lead inspector didn't want us to go to war. Our inspectors were finding nothing, so we assumed that we weren't being shown the good stuff. Turns out, there was nothing to find, which is why the inspectors were finding nothing.

As to your second part. YES! We were fully justified in attacking Afghanistan to unseat the Taliban and destroy their terrorist camps that supported OBL.

Of course, as has been very, very, very well documented, Iraq had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with 9-11.

[Hell's Bells]

How many years did we work with the UN to either find or verify there were no WPD in Iraq? If there were not, why would Sadam not let the inspectors in?

We were attacked on OUR SOIL. I do not think we need the worlds opinion or approval to find and get rid of the terroristst that did that, and are planning more. Just as we have no say in how the British should react after their attack, or the Spanish after theirs.

He did let the inspectors in. We took them out before we invaded. The lead inspector didn't want us to go to war. Our inspectors were finding nothing, so we assumed that we weren't being shown the good stuff. Turns out, there was nothing to find, which is why the inspectors were finding nothing.

As to your second part. YES! We were fully justified in attacking Afghanistan to unseat the Taliban and destroy their terrorist camps that supported OBL.

Of course, as has been very, very, very well documented, Iraq had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with 9-11.

he took them out in 1998 i recall

[Grizlaw]

We were attacked on OUR SOIL. I do not think we need the worlds opinion or approval to find and get rid of the terroristst that did that, and are planning more. Just as we have no say in how the British should react after their attack, or the Spanish after theirs.

The irony of this argument as a justification for invading Iraq is that, if anything, the fact that a substantial portion of our military resources are now tied up in Iraq for the foreseeable future may actually diminish our ability to pursue Al Qaeda...