Bush!

[RoffeDH]

Hi, I'm from Sweden, some of you might think of spolarbears when you hear "Sweden", I know Bush does; some of you might think of Victoria Silvsted when you hear "Sweden", I know Bush does; Some of you might think of me after this thread when you hear "Sweden", don't think Bush will though, hes never here. Now why do you claim all of this stuff, the answere is simple, Bush's an ashole! How come some might think, I'll tell you "Fool me once, you can fool me twice... Fool me... One... Never... Me..." or "50% of all improtation (or what ever it's called) come from out of America"... Didn't America listen to More? Didn't they realise that Bush is an idiot? Haven't they been thinking? HELLO! IRAK! Or all of the other shit! What have Bush done to you? Don't ask youself what you can do to your country, ask what your country can do for you and make it do it! Thats the only way!
(Not claiming that any one here on this bord is a "Busher" just fellt to say this)
Some one please go to the CIA and tell them what I have done! My adress is

Danahovsvägen 2C
31137 Falkenberg
Sweden

Send it to David Holman!

Pleas! I ask you! Would love to see what they'll do!

[The Lithium]

Yeah, I'm with you! Bush is a fucking asshole who has cost the world nothing but problems ever since he was born!

And no, America hasn't been listening enough to Moore! Sadly, very many here are Bushers. And a whole bunch aren't.

I wouldn't be too shocked if this thread was closed down. It will only start fights for no reason, and I know at least Steve supports Bush. (I like Steve, I just don't like Bush).

Anyway! I totally agree with you. And the rest of Sweden agrees with us. I've never met anyone here in Sweden who doesn't dislike him

[uncertaindrumer]

Thankfully, no one is listening to Moore, he is a retard.

Yes, Bush is a total moron with less intelligence than a mole.

But exactly why is someone from Sweden insulting our president like crazy? Just curious...

[Chase]

Yes... liberating Afghanistan from the hash rule of the Al-Qaeda supporting Taliban is a bad thing. Yes... freeing millions of Iraqis from the mass genocide of Saddam Hussein is a bad thing. Giving people in Iraq and Afghanistan the right to democratically pick who they want to lead their countries is a bad thing. The elections in Iraq and Afghanistan have influenced nations like Lebanon, Egypt, Ukraine, and Georgia to take their nations into their own hands. Apparently having a foreign policy designed to end global Islamic terror is a bad thing. America doesn't listen to Michael Moore for a reason. He makes claims and consistently fails to provide ANY proof. If anyone is a liar, it's him. He's one of the reasons why more people voted Republican and opposed to Democrat. Let me ask you this: What has your Pime Minister, Hans Göran Persson, contributed to international security? Where was Sweden in World War II? Where was Sweden when the Soviet Union was sweeping through Europe? Sweden was neutral in World War I and World War II. How the hell can a country be neutral against the rise of National Socialism in Germay? How can a country not have an opinion on Adolf Hitler? Sweden is an isolationist nation that has no altuism within it's political boundries and policies. It's nice to see Sweden NOT contributing to the tsunami victims in Asia or the earthquake victims in Pakistan. Sweden appears as a self-centered Soclialist nation, not willing to do anything while it's neighbors or international partners are under attack. Carl XVI Gustaf is also an irrelevant monarch on the global scale, he's no Queen Elizabeth... a monarch who is actually a revered monarch throughout the world. So, next time you want to bad mouth America for actually saving Europe (from the Nazis and the Soviets) or trying to thwart Islamic fundamentalism... ask yourself this: What has Sweden done for the world?

[The Lithium]

America doesn't listen to Michael Moore for a reason. He makes claims and consistently fails to provide ANY proof. If anyone is a liar, it's him.
When Farenhait 9/11 opened Moore said that anyone who could find one lie or one false statement should get 10,000 US Dollars... He never had to pay anyone anything...

What has your Pime Minister, Hans Göran Persson, contributed to international security?
Pretty much nothing, I think. But at least he hasn't totally destroied it like Bush has by bombing who ever he wants to get some Goddamn oil!

Where was Sweden in World War II? Where was Sweden when the Soviet Union was sweeping through Europe? Sweden was neutral in World War I and World War II. How the hell can a country be neutral against the rise of National Socialism in Germay?
I'm sorry man, I guess I wasn't alive back then, since I'm only turning 17 in December. I can't recall being too much in to politic by that time either... Maybe it's because you are using examples over 50 years old that has nothing to do with the fact that Bush is an idiot.

Carl XVI Gustaf is also an irrelevant monarch on the global scale
I hate that man and his family, they take our, just because they have a different lastname! It's time for Sweden to move on and get a president.

[RMadd]

To be fairly honest, I've somewhat renounced my support of Bush in recent months. But Roffe, you really don't say much of why you dislike him so much. You do mention Iraq, but then seem to insinuate that the extreme liberal views of a Hollywood filmmaker (whose credits also include "Bowling for Columbine") should be fully realized & shared by the majority of Americans.
Additionally, you call him stupid. While he might not be the greatest public speaker, and perhaps not the quickest on the draw, he's still fairly intelligent. Regardless of familial connections, he has more degrees from an Ivy League schools than, I would assume, anyone on here. Furthermore, you say he never goes to Sweden? I'll accept that as fact, but I ask you why he would want to go to Sweden? Not to be an asshole, but is your country of very significant geopolitical importance? He, above all, is a politician, and if he feels that Russia or Britain are more important than Sweden, then he'd be more inclined to visit them.

[The Lithium]

But Roffe, you really don't say much of why you dislike him so much.
I could go on for days saying things I dislike 'bout him. But I've been there, done that. I think Chase already know what I think of that man! :D

Not to be an asshole, but is your country of very significant geopolitical importance?
I wouldn't say very, but dude. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that everyone in this country hates him.

[RMadd]

I wouldn't say very, but dude. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that everyone in this country hates him.
I'm pretty sure that's a fairly unbased conclusion. Believe it or not, presidents still meet with foreign leaders despite their popularity (or lack thereof) in that country. Sure, they might not go out on the streets and kiss babies and take pictures with old women. As an international leader, he, more than likely, would ever show up there to discuss matters of mutual interest, and it's pretty obvious that Sweden isn't much for being heavily involved in global politics. That's why you guys are on his proverbial back-burner. Not because you don't like him. If that were the case, then would he ever go to Europe again?

[Ana4Stapp]

First i dont know the reasons the guy started this trhead about Bush but I think he has the right to say he dislike Bush, and its true, a lot ot foreigns dislike him (because his foreign politicy!)what no means dislike or disrespect american people...Need to say that because the last time it caused a true polemic on board.

And we foreigners can voice our opinion about it, cause US foreign policy clearly spreads to the whole world. So what Bush does/decides has a repercution here in South America or Europe or Asia.

And I even know americans guys that dislike Bush and admitted his foreign policy is an error, invading Iraq is an huge error...everyone can see it and dont tell me that it was to save the iraquian people or because the chemicals weapons Sadam had ...I cant believe that still exist people who believe on it.

Also no one here who is against Bush is giving support to Sadam or Bin Laden or to terrorists. No way.

But Id like to know WHY some americans guys are so ARROGANT saying things like waht 'Sweden did for the world'? Its the same of saying this country has no importance, because its not US... 'we did a lot of things'...by the way, things can be good or bad... :rolleyes: Depends in what place of the world you are...

By the way, Bush is going to visit Brazil next month and Im not very happy because of it...:rolleyes: and before some guy asks wahts the importance of this visit to my modest country I can say we have an huge importance on economics in South America and Bush knows it, since we are economics partners and a big market to american products.

Just to finish I didnt understand why Moore is a retarded or something like someone said (not sure who said it-sorry). I loved Bowling for Columbine even though I didnt see Fareheinht yet.

[RoffeDH]

To begin, I'd like to discust this even if some badmouthing will occure it's fun and I'm not one to judge someone by their politics in when I'm discusting music with them ;) So PLEASE keep this post open!


I hate that man and his family, they take our, just because they have a different lastname! It's time for Sweden to move on and get a president.

I don't hate our king, he's just stupid, luckly he's not running this country, but a president! NO WAY! I'm more of a commie (yeah! Come on! Hate me! :rolleyes: )

Now RMadd, Göran Persson and Bush have met severaltimes to discust the issues of the world and what our goverment whants Bush and America to do.


Where was Sweden in World War II? Where was Sweden when the Soviet Union was sweeping through Europe? Sweden was neutral in World War I and World War II. How the hell can a country be neutral against the rise of National Socialism in Germay? How can a country not have an opinion on Adolf Hitler?

What our country did in WW1 I have no idea... Perhaps we were to small and didn't have an amry great enough to be of any help. In WW2 the people wern't awear of what was going on at the other side of the world (or germany in for that matter), Hitler did fool the world, he foold EVERYONE! Even America who just got in to the war at the end! WHEN THEY WERE ATTACKED! Not 'couse they were good, but becouse they were attacked. In WW1 you still had some good ideas of what a country should do but I belive it got lost some were on the way. Why Sweden weren't attacked and therefor not brought into the war was becous of our mines! Hitler wanted to attack us but couldn't had he England would have bombed our oremines (belive it's called that) up in Norrland ("Northland", up high), and that's why! I can regreattly say that some people in Sweden, or a very large part of the Swedish people thought that the Soviet were good and that they were our friends. :wtf: And there still is, idiots if you ask me!
WE HAVE AN OPINION ON HITLER! HE SUCKED!


Apparently having a foreign policy designed to end global Islamic terror is a bad thing.

Yeah! How good of you to claim that the "global ISLAMIC terror" is a bad thing since there aint any, EVERYONE in islam, or all of those who aren't brainwashed know that that aint Islamic belife. Muslims must praise life and can't take their or anyone elses life! Now you know!


Sweden is an isolationist nation that has no altuism within it's political boundries and policies

WHAT! Look whos talking! My moms an american you know! So I have some ideas of how america is! My granmothers sister calles us during the Olympics to know who made firstplace since they didn't show that on TV, they showed that america came third! YEAH! Isolated! And not to talk about all of the threats like "The computers will go down at year 2k, the computers will go mad!" THE ONLYONES WHO BOUGHT THAT SHIT SYSTEM THINGI WAS AMERICANS WHO BELIVED IT! And not to mention all of the false threats that media tells you are troue! They're not! It's lies!


It's nice to see Sweden NOT contributing to the tsunami victims in Asia or the earthquake victims in Pakistan. Sweden appears as a self-centered Soclialist nation, not willing to do anything while it's neighbors or international partners are under attack

Heard of Bono? He's the singer in U2! He praise Sweden for it's politics! Okey! Bush hates it when Bono talkes about Sweden! Who told you Sweden wern't doing anything after the tsunami? I can say this... WE DIDN'T DO MUCH NO! But have the goverment been eating that! I know a famiy that I train karate with and they were there when the tsunami came, fortunatly they all survived, but they started their own foundation for the tsunami victims! The goverment have hopefully learnd from their mistakes!
I'm not that well informed when it comes to the earthquake but I'm not shure were doing to much witch can be becouse of the storm that costed the goverment millions, it struck at the westcoste and it was like a tornado the storm was called gurdun and were not that rich and we had no preperations for this kind of thing since this happen so rearly! The storm struck just months after the tsunami!


To be fairly honest, I've somewhat renounced my support of Bush in recent months. But Roffe, you really don't say much of why you dislike him so much. You do mention Iraq, but then seem to insinuate that the extreme liberal views of a Hollywood filmmaker (whose credits also include "Bowling for Columbine") should be fully realized & shared by the majority of Americans.


I hate him for making a bad country worse! I don't like american politics since no commies are allowed! I have never seen any other political side then that of the liberals...

God is on our side!



I humbly hope god is on our side!


Now I'm a christian myself and I can't say that there sais anywhere in the new testament that god will support you in war on that god will be on your side when you go to war, havn't didn't he say that he will be on our side in love?

OT: Met an american last year on a train and he said "you can't say that you like Bush here, you'll be killed", that's how much we hate him though there are some Bushers here to they're not that many!

Almost forgot! A Swedish citiznes (don't know the word, he comes from Irak) flead from Irak becouse he was politacly active and the gov (saddam) didn't like this. Now after that America have invaded Irak he said to his children and family "lets go to Irak, your herritage kids! And you'll see how much better it is after the good americans invaded it!", so they wen't down there and they had the camera and all to take pictures and a guard told them that it was iligal to take photos so they took him to the station to hear him out and had a bah over his head so he couldn't see anything and they tourtured him. He remembered an american walking in to the room and watched this! just looked at it! Didn't do a thing!

Have Irak become better? Don't think so! Bush just want to get a hold of the oil!

And how can you support him when he's one of the G8 leaders! PINK FLOYD REUNITED SO THAT THEY WOULD GIVE MONEY TO POOR! Pink Floyd man! That couldn't have happened any other way!

Now RMadd, why love America and Bush!

[RoffeDH]

Just wanted to argue a bit! Anna4Stapp!

[Ana4Stapp]

You know Roffe its amazing the way some people here seems to have enough knowledge to even 'judge' others countries politics but definitely dislike when foreigners do the same with US foreign policy... :rolleyes:

[JulieCitySlicker]

I don't give a flying rats ass about what you think of Bush! Your not from this country,so who cares what you think :rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

WOW!!! Whats your problem, Julie? Are you telling me to shut my mouth just because Im not from your country???? Who said you can do that? :mad: :mad: You know democracy?

I think you just dont understand how politics works...By the way if you dont care what I think about Bush or politics...WHY you are here?

Just to you know...Bush foreign policy gives us (no american people like Lith, Roffe...) the right to say our opinion, because like I said 'what Bush does spreads all over the world', you know?

Im SICK of your agressive replies to my posts on the political banter! Because everytime I posted something about it (because I LOVE politics!) you came with this kind of answer -last time I recall you asking the mods to close the thread after I gave my opinion, but thanks God the mods here are not closed mind people as you seem to be... but you know wahts funny i dont recall you saying your opinions... :rolleyes:

And even Chase who has enormous different political visions that I have is much more respectful than you. And I respect him cause he always says his opinion, but I NEVER saw him just saying someone to shut the mouth out because the person is not from US.

Its just... IGNORANCE !!!! :mad1: :mad:

[uncertaindrumer]

I hate him for making a bad country worse!

I am no Bush lover but you just totally lost my support. The United States of America is the the greatest darn thing to happen to the world in the last 500 years. We practically forced the world into the majorly democratic place it is today. Let me ask you how many major democratic countries were there before the U.S.? Hmmm... let's see. Can't think of any.

So after pushing the world into mostly democracy (oh, that's right, your a communist. You want Stalin back so he can gas all his own people), we then SAVE the darn world from Nazis, and still no one is appreciative. You know what would have happened without the U.S. in WWII? Any intelligent person alive can tell you. YOU'D BE SPEAKING GERMAN. We sacrificed our own lives to save Europe's sorry butt and sometimes I wonder why we did.

The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. Anything we wanted to do we could. We could impose our will on ANYONE. EVERY MAJOR STATE IN HISTORY with that kind of power has used it to conquer. From Alexander to Rome and beyond, those with power have used it to conquer. The U.S has not. If we wanted to we could take over your pitiful little country and impose our will on YOU. But do we? no. Because we aren't friggin commies like you apparently are.

So have we made mistakes? Duh. Electing Bush was a gigantic one. Randomly invading a country for no reason at all was a worse one. But what would your country know about mistakes? It never DOES anything so how can it ever make MISTAKES since it never DOES ANYTHING?!

/rant

I totally just went overboard... to much orange soda, dangit...

[Ana4Stapp]

I am no Bush lover but you just totally lost my support. The United States of America is the the greatest darn thing to happen to the world in the last 500 years. We practically forced the world into the majorly democratic place it is today. Let me ask you how many major democratic countries were there before the U.S.? Hmmm... let's see. Can't think of any.



Oh...you know I love you and your posts man, but that phrase here ...is...WOW!!! :rolleyes:

[Chase]

Everyone around the world is entitled to their opinions regarding the politics of the United States of America. However, EVERYTHING that you accused America and President Bush of being shows the complete lack of knowledge that judgemental Europeans have. I think that most of the blame should lie with the European media... who is OVERWHELMINGLY anti-American. I'll reiterate what Uncertain was saying... the United States since 1776 has been primarily a force of good on the international level. France was the first country really influenced by the United State's policies and from there, multiple nations adopted the idea of democracy... the ability to allow their citizens to elect their leaders. No one should dispute the United States ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan... and I can see why people aren't for the war in Iraq. However, A LOT of good is came from going into Iraq. Getting rid of a murderous tyrant was essential for establishing the venom to Islamic fundamentalism... democracy. And like I said previously, there have been a few countries influenced by Iraq's will to have elections... mind you, 60% of Iraqis went to the polls for their first democratically held elections. That's MORE than the United States and to top it off they risked their lives to do it. Obviously, electing their own leaders was a strong incentive for them. The war isn't for oil. We're paying too much money for gas in America right now and if this was a war for oil... the price for a gallon of oil would be much lower. Following the first Gulf War, we had access to ALL of Kuwait's oil reserves... who controls that oil now? Not the United States... the Kuwaitis. American foreign policy isn't imperialistic... and it hasn't been since about 100 years. America entered World War II in 1941... and the war ended in 1945. Europe was in war in roughly 1939... and during the period of 1939-1941, the United States was giving arms and ships to Britain. We were attacked by Japan, not Germany. It was after we declared war on Japan that Germany declared war on us. Many Americans died to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. My grandfather fought (and thankfully lived) in Europe... as well as countless other men. The French, the Poles, the Czechs, the Austrians... and other peoples literally owe their existance as a nation to the United States, Great Britain and the former U.S.S.R. I mean, you're criticizing us... and you're from a nation that hasn't contributed ANYTHING to ANYONE. Like I said before... Sweden was a neutral country in World War I and World War II. They were either easily intimadated by Hitler or sided with him. Why has Europe all of sudden turned into one be union of pacifists? The only nations that would actually defend Europe from foreign invaders would be Britain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Spain's former government (they have since quivered at the hands of terrorism). America is a nation of immigrants and it was mainly Europeans that founded this nation. I'm of Sicilian and German descent and once my family arrived here, they were undoubtedly patriotic and willing to give their lives to the nation that gave them the freedoms that they didn't have in the old country. MILLIONS of other immigrants have felt that way. Sometimes, it seems that all of the Europeans with integrity came to the United States. We have a huge population of everyone from Swedes and Filipinos, to Mexicans to Irish... what makes America strong is its diversity and its commitment to freedom (that's not to say that America hasn't had problems in its past... but overall America is the nation that has contributed the most to international security since the time of its creation).

[RoffeDH]

Hey Uncertain ;) Liked the last bit ;)
Now I have already said why we weren't in war at WW2 and that US of A only contributed to the war after being draged in to it! Didn't say who did it and yes it was the japans! And then the Nazis said they were at war with the Americans... So what would have happened if Japan hadn't gone to war with US of A... Were would America have been then?

Have anyone of you seen Team America? ;)

I agree with all of you that America WAS a great country and like I said lost it some were between WW1 and WW2! I mean Vietnam? Why did you go to war there? To test some new wepons? (A brief history lesson: The French started the war (I think it was them) and they couldn't win so thwy terned to USA and said "here take over!" and USA said "YEAH! Now we can finaly test ournew wepons!" so they did)

Have people in america thought of the poor? I mean, if you loos you job you'll most likely end up in the street! In Sweden we have a "net" for that, if you lose your job you'll get money anyway but you have to search for a job to get the money!

Yeah! I'm almoste a commie, and no I hate Stalin! Thats not communism! Thats Stalinism (Yes that's what it's called!)!
I belive in everyones right! The poor shuldn't be poor but the rich are allowed to be rich, just not filthy rich!

And to get back to Bush, HE'S IN SCULL AND BONES! If you now what that is, or atleast it's calimed by CBS 60 minuets and many other shows that I've "found" on the internet!

[uncertaindrumer]

The U.S. lost it between WWI and WWII.

I think YOU lost it somewhere long the way...

And Ana, I told you, I had had too much orange soda... but still, the United States going democratic did hasten the democracy of the rest of the world. But of course Roffe wants communistic countries where millions are murdered :rolleyes:

[uncertaindrumer]

And a decent post, Chase, but please please pretty please use paragraphs next time, lol

[RoffeDH]

I'm guessing your joking when you're saying that I want millions to be murdered becous I'm almoste a commie... To answere if you weren't joking: NO I don't! I just don't want the bounderies between the poor and the rich to be this great! Thats it!

[The Lithium]

I don't give a flying rats ass about what you think of Bush! Your not from this country,so who cares what you think :rolleyes:
That's just the fucking dumbest thing anyone has ever said... EVER!!! By bombing Iraq and stealing its oil he has affected the world economy. The whole world is suffering from Bush mistakes, so think before you open your mouth next time, will ya?

[The Lithium]

Double post

[JulieCitySlicker]

WOW!!! Whats your problem, Julie? Are you telling me to shut my mouth just because Im not from your country???? Who said you can do that? :mad: :mad: You know democracy?

I think you just dont understand how politics works...By the way if you dont care what I think about Bush or politics...WHY you are here?

Just to you know...Bush foreign policy gives us (no american people like Lith, Roffe...) the right to say our opinion, because like I said 'what Bush does spreads all over the world', you know?

Im SICK of your agressive replies to my posts on the political banter! Because everytime I posted something about it (because I LOVE politics!) you came with this kind of answer -last time I recall you asking the mods to close the thread after I gave my opinion, but thanks God the mods here are not closed mind people as you seem to be... but you know wahts funny i dont recall you saying your opinions... :rolleyes:

And even Chase who has enormous different political visions that I have is much more respectful than you. And I respect him cause he always says his opinion, but I NEVER saw him just saying someone to shut the mouth out because the person is not from US.

Its just... IGNORANCE !!!! :mad1: :mad:
I'm not going to respond to this right now because I'm in an extremely bad mood at the moment,and have been for quite a few days. That is probably why I posted that. I didn't mean to offend anyone but ya I'm never posting here again so don't fucking worry about it!

[RoffeDH]

Still you said it ;)

[RMadd]

WOW!!! Whats your problem, Julie? Are you telling me to shut my mouth just because Im not from your country???? Who said you can do that? :mad: :mad: You know democracy?
in an interesting twist, our democracy (as well as, presumably, every other free state) permits her to have such an opinion. Who said she could do that? Why, our democratic government did! Brilliant!

[RMadd]

That's just the fucking dumbest thing anyone has ever said... EVER!!! By bombing Iraq and stealing its oil he has affected the world economy. The whole world is suffering from Bush mistakes, so think before you open your mouth next time, will ya?
hey there, calm down there fella. while i don't necessarily agree w/ julie that we essentially need not care what those abroad think, you're just as off base to attack her by calling it the dumbest thing ever said. i've got a sneaking suspicion that much dumber things have been said.
bombing Iraq & stealing its oil? is that how this war is related by the international media? wow. let me say, then, that i pity you guys. while Bush's ultimate motive may well have been oil (that's not what he's saying, but there have been significant arguments to the contrary, and with good reason), we certainly are not stealing Iraq's oil. believe it or not, Iraq isn't even our #1 importer of international oil sources. they're something like #4 or lower. but, at any rate, they've been working to get it worked out fairly. we're not imperial colonists like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and all those European countries were back in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and even the early 20th centuries (imperial democracy, in the vein of Athens, is more like it lol) where we force our way into another place and dominate its resources. though the Bush administration might not be the best we've had (thanks to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, and all those cronies), I firmly believe we are trying to truly develop a stable democratic & capitalist state in the Middle East so in the very least, if for nothing else, we don't completely ruin our already-soured ties with other major players on the international scene (Germany, Russia, France too I suppose). Furthermore, the global economy already began to tank prior to the Iraq War, prior to invading Afghanistan, even prior to 9/11 (I might be the only one who recalls president Bush on the campaign trail in 2000 predicting that our nation's economy and, with it, the global economy, was headed for a downturn in the near future, and saying that we needed to be prepared). So, Lith, I'm pretty sure this little economic stagnation we're worrying about here is more a result of the excessive inflation (and lack of desire to control it) that we had in the 1990s. The market is, more or less, readjusting itself. Also, since you're in Europe, and presumably familiar with the Euro, if I were you, I'd be happy about that right now: it's actually far more valuable than the US dollar. So, please, consider other factors other than the political rhetoric spewed by the media in your newspapers and on your TV screen and weigh the evidence in a more objective manner before you open your mouth next time, will ya?

[Steve]

Have people in america thought of the poor? I mean, if you loos you job you'll most likely end up in the street! In Sweden we have a "net" for that, if you lose your job you'll get money anyway but you have to search for a job to get the money!

I can't believe some of the stereotypical anti-american ideas you Europeans have. This one as an example - you really believe America has no system for unemployment? Try researching...

And no offense to you Lithium but it's kind of hard to have a civil discussion regarding American politics when you have your head so far up Michael Moore's ass it's not funny. You claim you haven't heard anyone reveal things that Moore has said that was false. Well try reading this. You probably won't because it's several hundred pages, but take a look:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Or try a Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en&q=Fahrenheit+9/11+lies)

[JulieCitySlicker]

Still you said it ;)
Ya,I know I still said it! I am apologizing now for it though. I am not in a descent state of mind right now and couldn't make a nice post if I tried to. So there ya go! I still haven't changed my opinion on Bush though.

[RoffeDH]

Welcome to the topic Steve ;)
Nice page you have there I must say... Wont read all of it though witch I think you might find fair. But I can say this then "More down the can!" okey? Are we on the same page? ;)

Now to my defense of the thing I said about the unemployment system in america... YES! You have... But how good is it? Seriusly! If I'm poor and break a leg, have no job... What should I do, I can't likely pay of both the medicalbill and the rent to my appartment with that sallery... That's what I'm talking 'bout, correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to have an incuranse or the doctors arn't alowed to operate on you, Right?

RMadd, pleas press "enter" some times!
And RMadd I hate the euro! And thankefully we don't have it! We CAN shop with it at bigger places, and the companies do buissnues with the euro. But we still have kroners thank god! Now why do I hate it? It will make the stepp to a "new america" closer (United States of Europe), no thanks!

[RoffeDH]

Your intiteled to you opinion Julie :P
I accepte you apolagie ;) :P

[uncertaindrumer]

Wow. No one really dealt with any of RMadd's (very good) points.

[Ana4Stapp]

The U.S. lost it between WWI and WWII.

I think YOU lost it somewhere long the way...

And Ana, I told you, I had had too much orange soda... but still, the United States going democratic did hasten the democracy of the rest of the world. But of course Roffe wants communistic countries where millions are murdered :rolleyes:

I think the orange soda is still making some effect here...lol

[Ana4Stapp]

[QUOTE]Everyone around the world is entitled to their opinions regarding the politics of the United States of America

Thanks for your support, thats why I really respect your opinions here. ;)

However, EVERYTHING that you accused America and President Bush of being shows the complete lack of knowledge that judgemental Europeans have. I think that most of the blame should lie with the European media... who is OVERWHELMINGLY anti-American.

Well...Im not european, dont even live in Europe but I want to clarify that my point is not against Bush personally...or against AMERICAN PEOPLE. Iam not attacking your president just to make fun of him...but I think waht we non american members here are saying is that we are against Bush foreign policy. You know its kinda weird support a leader of a country that has so much power, technology and money that insists in a war...
I know you are going to reply saying sometimes war is necessary, but try at least to think about a world that already had two big world wars ...and lived under the terryfing but real possibility of having the third one...

You really think terrorism can be stopped with war? Really? Attacking Afeghanistan or Iraq (even though Sadam clearly was a terrible stupid guy who had no mercy or compassion for his own people -being responsible of killing a lot of children).

Also, think about the american soldiers who are dying every day since the war started...

I'll reiterate what Uncertain was saying... the United States since 1776 has been primarily a force of good on the international level. France was the first country really influenced by the United State's policies and from there, multiple nations adopted the idea of democracy... the ability to allow their citizens to elect their leaders.

And yes, US had an important role in the democracy in XVIII and XIX century specially concerning to the latin american independencies that means an huge influence in every emancipacionist movement latin american had. (my country included), and by the way I teach it to my students and when they usually ask 'why we have to study US independency'? I answer them the reason: US (13 british colonies) was the first to fight for the independence against the british tirany, to fight for freedom agaisnt the exploitation Britain imposed to them after the Seven years war to recover economy damaged by the conflict...
and US independency was special because it had people involved in it.

No that oil now? Not the United States... the Kuwaitis. American foreign policy isn't imperialistic... and it hasn't been since about 100 years.

I'll ask you one thing, Chase...you have knowledge about US foreign policy to Latin american countries in the 60's and 70'? Jusk ask u that. ;)

[JulieCitySlicker]

Your intiteled to you opinion Julie :P
I accepte you apolagie ;) :P

Thanks :)

[Ana4Stapp]

in an interesting twist, our democracy (as well as, presumably, every other free state) permits her to have such an opinion. Who said she could do that? Why, our democratic government did! Brilliant!

Ok...but I cant have mine...hun? It seems the opposite of democracy...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

That's just the fucking dumbest thing anyone has ever said... EVER!!! By bombing Iraq and stealing its oil he has affected the world economy. The whole world is suffering from Bush mistakes, so think before you open your mouth next time, will ya?

"Stealing its oil." Wow... bold statement from someone who has NO PROOF. You keep making accusation after accusation without providing any proof. I don't know if its a Swedish thing... because reading these posts makes it appear that Swedes are a nation of radicals. So what you're essentially saying is: Afghanistan is better off with Al Qaeda and the Taliban... and Iraq is better off with Saddam Hussein mass murdering innocent people. I really, really hope that this doesn't reflect the government of Sweden... because if that's the case... then that entire country should be ashamed of itself.

[Chase]

American foreign policy regarding Latin American nations during the 1960s and 1970s? Like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the spread of communism in Latin America?

[Ana4Stapp]

American foreign policy regarding Latin American nations during the 1960s and 1970s? Like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the spread of communism in Latin America?

Supporting the dictatorial governements (that by the way were responsible for a lot of murdering and torture all over the Latin American for decades)... what means banishing governors who were ellected by the people ...is this democracy?

[RMadd]

RMadd, pleas press "enter" some times!
my apologies for having extensive thoughts all within the same vein. i guess that's just how i learned to write.
And RMadd I hate the euro! And thankefully we don't have it! We CAN shop with it at bigger places, and the companies do buissnues with the euro. But we still have kroners thank god! Now why do I hate it? It will make the stepp to a "new america" closer (United States of Europe), no thanks!very very true... it's funny you should mention that name. last semester, in my Polysci Int'l Relations class we read excerpts from a book by T.R. Reid titled "The United States of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200335/103-9113812-4804623?v=glance)" (followed by the obligatory long-winded explanation of the clause within the title itself). pretty interesting actually. i guess the big thing our teacher had us read was the example of GE-Honeywell exec Jack Welch & how the EU blocked some product of his from being sold in Europe (or something to that effect) and how the EU is rapidly gaining ground on the US (an idea which i don't so much mind, b/c it kinda sucks more or less having to be the global policeman, but getting hit with sh** from everyone when our level of policing is lesser than desired)

[RMadd]

Ok...but I cant have mine...hun? It seems the opposite of democracy...:rolleyes:now you get it! democracy is relative, so opinions don't matter, b/c the majority of people are dead-set in their beliefs on a few key issues that dominate politics! that's why i now feel that political parties (in particular, the 2-party system of the US) is a crock.

[RoffeDH]

I mean Vietnam? Why did you go to war there? To test some new wepons? (A brief history lesson: The French started the war (I think it was them) and they couldn't win so thwy terned to USA and said "here take over!" and USA said "YEAH! Now we can finaly test ournew wepons!" so they did)
Or

I'm guessing your joking when you're saying that I want millions to be murdered becous I'm almoste a commie... To answere if you weren't joking: NO I don't! I just don't want the bounderies between the poor and the rich to be this great! Thats it!


Now to my defense of the thing I said about the unemployment system in america... YES! You have... But how good is it? Seriusly! If I'm poor and break a leg, have no job... What should I do, I can't likely pay of both the medicalbill and the rent to my appartment with that sallery... That's what I'm talking 'bout, correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to have an incuranse or the doctors arn't alowed to operate on you, Right?

Anyone! Pleas respond to me on thees points...?

RMadd, got it ;) But It would healp anyway :P ;)

[RMadd]

Ummm, I don't think Vietnam was about testing weapons. That's a terribly cynical view to possess. IMO, Vietnam was about stopping the spread of Communism. Or at least that's what I've learned in the various classes I've had that have touched on 'Nam. We'd been involved there since the 1950s (when the French were trying to control it) with covert operatives, but really took over in the mid-to-late '60s. We saw a free state (South Vietnam), albeit led by a questionable fella, faced with the danger of being overrun by a communist dictatorship (North Vietnam). Given our desire throughout the Cold War to stop the spread of communism at any potential flashpoints, it made sense to go in. Unfortunately, the military was, more or less, still expecting and prepared for a war more similar to WWII & Korea. Guerilla warfare simply wasn't our "thing" at the time. Furthermore, the war was essentially a stalemate until the US chose to leave, in large part due to negative public opinion here (this had a huge effect on soldier morale).

I really don't know what to say w/ regard to your second point.

I think we don't have an unemployment or health care system like y'alls because were not a socialist democracy. Technically speaking, we're a republic, in which people elect representatives to make decisions for them (one of these decisions, of course, is to not socialize too much aside from Social Security). For whatever reason, our "status" has been blurred to be a democracy, although we're hardly identical to Athens (which can be considered to be the archetypical democracy).

[Ana4Stapp]

now you get it! democracy is relative, so opinions don't matter, b/c the majority of people are dead-set in their beliefs on a few key issues that dominate politics! that's why i now feel that political parties (in particular, the 2-party system of the US) is a crock.


Yeah...democracy is relative, you know... even in Athens democracy wasnt for all... ;)

[Ana4Stapp]

Supporting the dictatorial governements (that by the way were responsible for a lot of murdering and torture all over the Latin American for decades)... what means banishing governors who were ellected by the people ...is this democracy?


Humm...NO REPLIES? Is this a VERY HARD] question ???? :rolleyes:

[RMadd]

Sorry i didn't reply to that... Usually, after reading the first post or 2 after my latest one, i scroll down to the bottom (sometimes & get stopped @ said 1st 2). My answer to that is, no, it's not democracy. Not technically, anyway. I suppose our government tried to support the leader(s) whom they thought would be more receptive to democracy (or at least a freer system) once in power. Guys like Chiang Kai-Shek (Taiwan/the Republic of China), Saddam Hussein (we supported him in Iraq's war w/ Iran, b/c we, slightly ironically, opposed a religious military dictatoriship in the latter state), and... crikey, i had his name just a minute ago, and it just slipped away........... fuck, hopefully it'll come to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean w/ the governor comment. You talking about Gray Davis & his recall in Cali (which Ahnold won)? To be honest, I don't recall the circumstances surrounding his recall, but I imagine that he was involved in some sort of scandal or other illicit activity (or perhaps the people, Left and Right alike, flat out disapproved of the job he was doing... a pretty odd reaction, electing a Republican in one of the most liberal states in the nation). But if I'm not mistaken, a recall election is well within the bounds of the Cali constitution, and there's nothing in our US constitution forbidding it. So, yes it is democracy, or at least California's brand of it (as espoused in its Constitution)

[RMadd]

the shah of Iran, that's who I was thinking of! but, yeah, he didn't have the best or most democratic track record with his people, but the US supported him b/c he was a secular government.

[RoffeDH]

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... ;) But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?

[RMadd]

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...
That may be the case (I've never really studied 'Nam in-depth, so I don't really know one way or the other), but I think you claimed that we went into 'Nam with the sole purpose of testing the new weapons technology. I find that to be utterly false, given what I said above regarding our stance towards communism, etc.

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... ;) But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?
Yes, you're right. I didn't mention him, however, because he himself was not the leader of the state, as were Chiang, Saddam, or the Shah. But, yeah, the CIA definitely helped him out when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (another example of defending against communism!).

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?
To be quite honest, I'm not the biggest fan of it, because, as we've seen, it's not just cut and dry, black and white. There's a gajillion variables involved. Plus, alot of what we've tried to do involves cultural imperialism, which isn't the best either.

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!
While it wasn't perhaps the smoothest, Iraq had been in "continued noncompliance" with UN rules made specifically for it (Saddam had kicked out UN inspectors a few times in the late '90s and early '00s, among other things). So while I'm not the biggest fan of us essentially saying "fuck you, France, Germany, and Russia" (because, to be quite blunt, those are about the only countries we really cared about not going in with us), I can see how Bush's hawks were pushing him to go to war (that's another thing I'm skeptical of: I feel President Bush's terms would've gone a whole lot better if he didn't have Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, and all the other guys that had worked for his dad and/or Reagan 15 years ago who were prolly still a bit miffed about Papa Bush not wanting to go all the way to Baghdad).

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?
Sorry, I didn't catch that point. I'd say, at least right now, that you're prolly fairly accurate with it. I mean, instead of Saddam's Republican Guard & other forces being around all the time, there's coalition forces policing the streets. But they're working on developing a new military & police force that's better equipped to work on its own. Constitution vote is today, and from what I understand, it has a very real chance of passing. It's possible to conclude that the recent escalation of violence may be due to the opponents to a democratic state are getting desperate. Just reading a CNN story, they said reports of violence have been relatively little today. Furthermore, you have to see we're only a couple years removed from actually beginning the rebuilding process. Most Americans might not like to hear this, but it may take 20 years of some sort of military presence (certainly not as large as today, over 100,000) to really get the country back on its feet again. That's why I find people protesting for the immediate extrication of troops from Iraq to be utterly out of their minds: at the risk of sounding like I'm regurgitating President Bush's words, we really do need to stay until we have a pretty good indication that the country won't relapse into violence. And these indicators might be: strong, sustained economic growth; a string of elected top officials whom the people trust and do try to work for the state's common good; and a significant reduction in day-to-day terrorist violence, of course over a long period of time (perhaps up to a year?).

[Ana4Stapp]

Sure it was not democracy...so it means US defends democracy all over the world, but the practice is different...is a fact.What US wanted was to win the Cold War game, no matter how...
But of course latin american politicians were VERY resposible for it as well, cause they didnt anything to avoid it, in true they allowed this, because it take them to the power....and money.
But its not a total surprise you really dont know about this period of US foreign policy ...

[Chase]

Sorry i didn't reply to that... Usually, after reading the first post or 2 after my latest one, i scroll down to the bottom (sometimes & get stopped @ said 1st 2). My answer to that is, no, it's not democracy. Not technically, anyway. I suppose our government tried to support the leader(s) whom they thought would be more receptive to democracy (or at least a freer system) once in power. Guys like Chiang Kai-Shek (Taiwan/the Republic of China), Saddam Hussein (we supported him in Iraq's war w/ Iran, b/c we, slightly ironically, opposed a religious military dictatoriship in the latter state), and... crikey, i had his name just a minute ago, and it just slipped away........... fuck, hopefully it'll come to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean w/ the governor comment. You talking about Gray Davis & his recall in Cali (which Ahnold won)? To be honest, I don't recall the circumstances surrounding his recall, but I imagine that he was involved in some sort of scandal or other illicit activity (or perhaps the people, Left and Right alike, flat out disapproved of the job he was doing... a pretty odd reaction, electing a Republican in one of the most liberal states in the nation). But if I'm not mistaken, a recall election is well within the bounds of the Cali constitution, and there's nothing in our US constitution forbidding it. So, yes it is democracy, or at least California's brand of it (as espoused in its Constitution)

Recall is complete legal here in California. Much of the recall election surrounded economic issues and the fiscal irresponsibilities by the folks running the state in Sacramento. There were other issues that Arnold brought up to the people... like driver licenses for illegal aliens. The state is fairly liberal... we have more Democrats working in Sacramento, D.C., and two Democratic Senators (Boxer and Feinstein). However, there are some big Republican counties, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange. But just to sum it up... the recall was more based on where the financial resources for the state were being allocated. High ranking California Republicans did a very good job at convincing a blue state to vote for a moderate Republican.

[Chase]

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... ;) But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?

We have never supported Osama Bin Laden. We have supported Saddam Hussein at one time... but never funded Al Qaeda. No one has ever said that no one else has the right to topple dictators... but the Bush administration has a problem with nations like France, Germany, and Russia (who had economic ties to Iraq's oil) with wanting to all of sudden jump right into post Saddam Iraq. I have spoken to numerous soldiers from the U.S. and Britain... as well as Iraqis living in America who all agree that the media is tainting the facts. Al Qaeda letters have been leaked recently with their leaders expressing to Musab Al-Zarqawi (the #1 terrorist in Iraq) that democracy in Iraq will hurt the terror network much like Afghanistan turn to democracy. The war in Iraq is much larger than Saddam Hussein... and it has already influenced other nations to embrace democracy. The majority of Iraqis did not support Saddam Hussein... in fact the Sunnis are a minority group in Iraq. The nation is primarily Shiites, along with some Kurds. Two groups in which Saddam terrorized.

[RMadd]

We have never supported Osama Bin Laden.
actually, Roffe's right... we did support him against the USSR back when they invaded in '79 (I believe) in what became the Soviet "Vietnam."

[RMadd]

But its not a total surprise you really dont know about this period of US foreign policy ...
what the hell is that supposed to mean?

[Chase]

actually, Roffe's right... we did support him against the USSR back when they invaded in '79 (I believe) in what became the Soviet "Vietnam."

We did fund the Afghan fighters (which Bin Laden supported), however, the U.S. didn't specifically allocate funds direcatly to Osama Bin Laden. If, Osama did receive American money... it was through illegal activities. His terror networks gained prominence in the late 80s during the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Like I said before, the U.S. backed the Afghan fighters... but it's not like they specifically sent money to fund Osama's terrorist groups. I could be wrong... but there is no evidence supporting the acccusation that U.S. intentionally aided Osama bin Laden.

[RMadd]

We never said the US funded al Qaeda or Osammie's terrorist groups; we merely stated, as you agreed, that we supported Mr. bin Laden. It's a fact. It doesn't mean that the US actually supports terrorism; nor does it mean we aid & abett (sp?) terrorists & terror organizations; it merely means that we were playing a calculated political game during the Cold War, in which we defined anyone and everyone who didn't get along with the Soviets as our friends, regardless of their ultimate motives. So, President Bush might say "you're either with us or you're against us;" back then, it was more of a "if you're against our #1, then we'd love to have ya"

[Ana4Stapp]

what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Because US foreign policy (supporting dictatorships for example), wasnt a thing to be 'proud of' - and of course Washington didnt want american people knew it.

[RMadd]

even if Washington doesn't want us to know about some stuff, there's still a fair amount of information on counterinsurgencies in Latin American from the '50s & '60s thru the '80s. I did a paper my senior year of high school on the one under Reagan in El Salvador. sure, we might not know the entire story, given that those documents from that time period have yet to be declassified (it's something like 40 or 50 years later when official gov docs that are no longer considered crucial to gov't policy are declassified... standard procedure). but at any rate, that means that Europeans or anyone else have the same access to the same information that we do, and vice versa.

[RoffeDH]

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right? You wouldn't belive it if I told you that I have read that your countyr did this and that and that I've read it in a official document from my state, this might just be what have happend with Ana4Stapp, her gov says this, but you don't belive it becouse your country doesn't say anything about it...

[Chase]

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right? You wouldn't belive it if I told you that I have read that your countyr did this and that and that I've read it in a official document from my state, this might just be what have happend with Ana4Stapp, her gov says this, but you don't belive it becouse your country doesn't say anything about it...

Swedish espionage?! Wow... now I've heard everything. I doin't think any American would believe what you're saying because of your blatant Michael Moore worship. We don't believe your accusations because they are OBVIOUSLY false and much of your "intel" is derived from one hilariously ridiculous "mockumentary."

[eusebioCBR]

:banana: Bravo Chase!!!!!!!! Swedish espionage?! Wow... now I've heard everything. I doin't think any American would believe what you're saying because of your blatant Michael Moore worship. We don't believe your accusations because they are OBVIOUSLY false and much of your "intel" is derived from one hilariously ridiculous "mockumentary."

[Ana4Stapp]

I wasnt talking about espionage especifically, I was refering to censorship that governements usually do...you know all of them act in this same way...
lets see...you really KNOW what was happening in the 60', 70's concerning US to the foreign policy in Latin american.

Well Im refering to LA cause someone (I dont remember exactly who-sorry)- said that US spread the democracy all over the world, so I asked how it was really possible IF US governement supported dictartoships in the LA countries against the ellected presidents...and also asked if you american, REALLY know about it?

And seemed you didnt... ;)

And Im NOT intending to provoke you ...in true, its really cause I want to know... just for curiosity... :D

[RMadd]

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right? You wouldn't belive it if I told you that I have read that your countyr did this and that and that I've read it in a official document from my state, this might just be what have happend with Ana4Stapp, her gov says this, but you don't belive it becouse your country doesn't say anything about it...
well, it seems what we have here is merely a case of everyone believing what their respective governments are telling them... so i suppose we can't really make any judgements now as to who is right and wrong on this matter.
of course, i'm sure that none of this intel has anything to do with attempts to undermine US authority or superiority http://creedfeed.com/community/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
(http://creedfeed.com/community/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)

[RMadd]

I wasnt talking about espionage especifically, I was refering to censorship that governements usually do...you know all of them act in this same way...
lets see...you really KNOW what was happening in the 60', 70's concerning US to the foreign policy in Latin american.

Well Im refering to LA cause someone (I dont remember exactly who-sorry)- said that US spread the democracy all over the world, so I asked how it was really possible IF US governement supported dictartoships in the LA countries against the ellected presidents...and also asked if you american, REALLY know about it?

And seemed you didnt... ;)

And Im NOT intending to provoke you ...in true, its really cause I want to know... just for curiosity... :D
I believe you're referring to me, and I feel you misunderstood what I meant. one of our nation's "lines," pretty much ever since the end of WWII, has been that we try to spread democracy throughout the world. Now, during the Cold War, this more or less took the shape of supporting whomever was less overtly communist or the least-involved with the USSR.

Given the history and omnipresence of violence in many of these states (I'm thinking South Asia, Latin America, and Africa) largely stemming from European colonial rule, there were few potential leaders who were true suppporters of democracy and had survived long enough to campaign for it to become the leader of the state. In those places, violence begets violence, and it is seen as a far simpler method of problem-solving than typical democratic means (it's what they knew and had grown accustomed to, so what's the incentive to change?). Furthermore, I know that even today, the majority of citizens in many Latin American states prefer a "cult of personality" (think Stalin, Castro, and the like) over a virtuous or good leader. The idea that "might makes right" discussed in Plato's The Republic mostcertainly plays a role here.

Today, certainly more so than in the past, we are more committed to spreading actual democracy, I would say due largely to the public access to information (through the newsmedia and the like) and the shrinking size of the world, in terms of global politics.

I am aware that our government made some bad decisions in its foreign policy with regard to "Third World" countries in the '60s-'80s. We might not be fully aware of the extent of these decisions right now, but I feel it's unfair to write us off as ignorant (not your words, but my conclusion regarding your "accusations") simply because we aren't experts on an area of American foreign policy. I would guess you don't possess expert knowledge in every topic of British FP (you're British, aren't you?).

[RMadd]

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right?
i missed this point in my first reply to this quote...

so, we're going to assume Sweden's espionage documents have been declassified? And Swedes, therefore, have access to these documents. Now, wouldn't American scholars and, indeed, American citizens too have access to this once-privied information? Or is there some goofy rule in Sweden that says declassified info can only be used by Swedes (a rule which would be very very difficult to enforce if, in fact, it did exist).

[Ana4Stapp]

I believe you're referring to me, and I feel you misunderstood what I meant. one of our nation's "lines," pretty much ever since the end of WWII, has been that we try to spread democracy throughout the world. Now, during the Cold War, this more or less took the shape of supporting whomever was less overtly communist or the least-involved with the USSR.

Yeah, even though Chase and also uncertiandrumer said the same thing.

Given the history and omnipresence of violence in many of these states (I'm thinking South Asia, Latin America, and Africa) largely stemming from European colonial rule, there were few potential leaders who were true suppporters of democracy and had survived long enough to campaign for it to become the leader of the state. In those places, violence begets violence, and it is seen as a far simpler method of problem-solving than typical democratic means (it's what they knew and had grown accustomed to, so what's the incentive to change?). Furthermore, I know that even today, the majority of citizens in many Latin American states prefer a "cult of personality" (think Stalin, Castro, and the like) over a virtuous or good leader. The idea that "might makes right" discussed in Plato's The Republic mostcertainly plays a role here.

I cant agree with you in that, I mean , concerning to the "cult of personality" like you said...I really cant see this way...but maybe you right in some aspect , democracy is still a new issue in many countries in Latin America and the people used to understand politics like a favor the leaders did...it was Populism ( the practice of manipulating people trough the concession of countless 'favors') These favors in true were rights.It was common place in Latin America during 40' and 60'.


Today, certainly more so than in the past, we are more committed to spreading actual democracy, I would say due largely to the public access to information (through the newsmedia and the like) and the shrinking size of the world, in terms of global politics.

Trough the use of the war?

I am aware that our government made some bad decisions in its foreign policy with regard to "Third World" countries in the '60s-'80s. We might not be fully aware of the extent of these decisions right now, but I feel it's unfair to write us off as ignorant (not your words, but my conclusion regarding your "accusations") simply because we aren't experts on an area of American foreign policy. I would guess you don't possess expert knowledge in every topic of British FP (you're British, aren't you?)

Look, I wasnt accusing the american people, in true i was refering to US leaders, that really made bad decisions like you said . And of course, I wasnt saying you were ignorants (even though, sometimes we use and understand this word in a wrong way), sorry if you took it this way...I really like talking to you about this matter and even disagreeing I respect your opinions as well.

And by the way, disagreeing ,you are wrong...Im not british...Im from South America
and of course I dont have entire knowledge of every topic of my country or other country politics...but I 'think' I have 'some', since Im graduated in History and love politcs.

And last...hope sincerely my post has some meaning, cause its too late and Im sleepy...so, sorry. :D

[Chase]

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.

[RMadd]

I cant agree with you in that, I mean , concerning to the "cult of personality" like you said...I really cant see this way...but maybe you right in some aspect , democracy is still a new issue in many countries in Latin America and the people used to understand politics like a favor the leaders did...it was Populism ( the practice of manipulating people trough the concession of countless 'favors') These favors in true were rights.It was common place in Latin America during 40' and 60'.
they really do prefer a strong leader over one who might promise actual change but nonetheless be perceived as a weak man. but, like you pointed out, it's a remnant of living for so long under 1 system, and to suddenly change is a sort of culture shock within their own culture...


Trough the use of the war?
I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's wrong. All's I'm saying is that's just how it is.

[RMadd]

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.
poly sci major, history minor here lol

[Ana4Stapp]

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.

Yes, I am a history teacher... and Id like to study political science maybe someday...
And its the same here, cause even though we have different points of wiews concerning to the politics (especially Bush foreign policy) I really respect your opinions and like very much talking to you. ;)

Thanks for your kind words, Chase... but... :o I have to admmit this is a total surprise coming from you - I was quite sure you dislike all my posts and PM I sent you... :o

[Ana4Stapp]

poly sci major, history minor here lol

It really explains the 'hot' discussions we have here... lol :rolleyes: but whats the meaning of being majoring and minoring? Whats the difference?

[uncertaindrumer]

Majoring is your number 1, minoring is your number 2, basically.

[RMadd]

yeah.... at least at my school, my major is 45 credit hours... and since each poly sci class is 3 hrs (meaning it meets for 3 hours each week), I have to take at least 15 poly sci classes. my minor is 18 hours, so I've got to take 6 of those over 4 years. the tricky part is also scheduling in all the bullshit general education classes they make us take, although i suppose that's supposed to make us into better-rounded people or something like that.

[Ana4Stapp]

yeah.... at least at my school, my major is 45 credit hours... and since each poly sci class is 3 hrs (meaning it meets for 3 hours each week), I have to take at least 15 poly sci classes. my minor is 18 hours, so I've got to take 6 of those over 4 years. the tricky part is also scheduling in all the bullshit general education classes they make us take, although i suppose that's supposed to make us into better-rounded people or something like that.

so...its related to the high school, not to the college? Is it?
Because I m graduate by College and also have one specialization in contemporary history

[Chase]

Yes, I am a history teacher... and Id like to study political science maybe someday...
And its the same here, cause even though we have different points of wiews concerning to the politics (especially Bush foreign policy) I really respect your opinions and like very much talking to you. ;)

Thanks for your kind words, Chase... but... :o I have to admmit this is a total surprise coming from you - I was quite sure you dislike all my posts and PM I sent you... :o

You know, I have never disliked any of your posts... at all. It's just nice having intelligent and stimulating conversations/debates with people who are actually interested in the same fields as I am. ;)

[Chase]

poly sci major, history minor here lol

Hahahahaha... almost two of a kind. What year are you in school?

[Ana4Stapp]

You know, I have never disliked any of your posts... at all. It's just nice having intelligent and stimulating conversations/debates with people who are actually interested in the same fields as I am. ;)


Same here ;)

[RMadd]

so...its related to the high school, not to the college? Is it?
Because I m graduate by College and also have one specialization in contemporary history
no, it's related to college. some majors have a degree with a specialization, others don't. some majors are considered "comprehensive," in that, at least at my school, you take something like 63 hrs for the major, and you don't have a minor (instead of 45+18). but, yeah, it's a college thing. i suppose specialization & major are just 2 different words for the same thing

[RMadd]

Hahahahaha... almost two of a kind. What year are you in school?
I'm a Junior though, if I'm counting my hours correctly, I'll be a senior (or perhaps 1 hour away from it) in the Spring semester. I'm pretty excited that I'm ahead of schedule. I've only got 6 poly sci classes and 2 history classes to take over the next 3 semesters, so that could free up some time to do a semester internship & still graduate in 4 years (give or take a summer class or two, if need be). Of course, I've still got 2 general education requirements to fulfill: 1 of which is a natural/applied science (I'm either going to take physics or astronomy, and prolly this coming summer, so the lab and lecture, which are scheduled separately, don't conflict with any of my poly sci or history classes). The other class is called a "Capstone" course, which basically fulfills the "public affairs mission" of this schools, preferably in your senior year.

[Ana4Stapp]

See this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4382464.stm

Do you agree with that, I mean is this Bush 'defining moment'? Do you notice american people (common people---like parents, neighbors, teachers etc...)taking their support off for Bush governement? Can you see/feel this?

Just curious... ;)

[eusebioCBR]

No. I am a conservervative so the last place to look for our opinions is any major media publication. We did not approve of his choice because she is unknown. We want an advocate for the Constitution, not a liberal that will create law from the bench just to be popular with the social mood of the day. We want a conservative Supreme Court justice nominated, what's wrong with that? When Clinton was President there were NO demands that he pick a "centrist" nominee. If you want HONEST insight on concervative positions visit RushLimbaugh.com <I am proud of my core beliefs and they are not a matter open for debate. However just the mention of RUSH will upset some so they are free engage in name calling. I will be sooooooo shocked! :laugh:

[RMadd]

ummm, yeah, i guess so... i include myself among those who have retracted support from him in recent months. i think his nomination of Miers (of which the article you have linked speaks) was downright boneheaded, and not merely because I consider myself somewhat a neocon (in terms of my views of morality, etc). I really could care less about that. She just wasn't a good choice b/c, as has been pointed out so often, the nomination reeks of cronyism. She had no experience as a judge, and had served as Bush's personal lawyer back in the day. What the fuck is he thinking? Eschewing his strongest base of support by nominating someone too moderate, and further distancing himself from most normal Americans by choosing someone with no experience. I used to think he (and, more importantly, those close to him in his administration) were brilliant strategians in that they were able to put positive spin on lots of things and maintain support among his key segments without alienating too many, but this latest fiasco seems to prove that perhaps Karl Rove and all aren't quite so in control as I'd previously thought.

[eusebioCBR]

Oh yeah support. I'm still supporting the President. Well, 80% support - Washington Republicans are wimps. I don't know why they're afraid to fight(politicaly), Democrats aren't.

[RoffeDH]

i missed this point in my first reply to this quote...

so, we're going to assume Sweden's espionage documents have been declassified? And Swedes, therefore, have access to these documents. Now, wouldn't American scholars and, indeed, American citizens too have access to this once-privied information? Or is there some goofy rule in Sweden that says declassified info can only be used by Swedes (a rule which would be very very difficult to enforce if, in fact, it did exist).

No RMadd... There is no such rule in swedish law... On the other hand you would have more torubble getting these documents for they are in sweden right? Shure we can ship it but if the American gov found out I would be band, you would have the hole FBI checking you up and so on and so on... Right? (This is all hypothetickal! :D )

[RMadd]

why would the FBI check on me if I'm reading declassified Swedish documents? first off, they're declassified, so even if the FBI doesn't like it, I, and everyone else, still has a right to read them. second, they're Swedish, so it's not like I'm reading declassified Iranian or Saudi intelligence. third, once declassified, I'm sure, if there's anything important, authors, scholars, and the like would rush to read, assess, and critically analyze these documents. the Swedish government might also make these documents available electronically (i.e. on the internet, or in some database that can be accessed). as such, you would not be my only means of accessing the information in said documents if I so desired.

[uncertaindrumer]

Yes, the Miers nomination was a joke... Basically I second almost everything RMadd said about her...

[Ana4Stapp]

See this : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9904968/

Opinions here?