Obama to demand more from Europe in Berlin speech

[bhkad]

What the hell makes you "pro-Bush"?

Name me one thing Bush has done which you think Merkel and Sarkozy support, which you don't think Kerry would do.

After all this time it still needs explaining??? :doh

He confronted the axis of evil.

[Our second goal] is to prevent regimes (terrorist) that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

– George W. Bush, 2002 State of Union Address

 

[Truth Detector]

In fact the majority of Europeans supported the war in Afganistan. Because the objectives were clear and concise. Get the people of 9/11 and make sure Afghanistan was not a training ground for Islamic terrorists.

When it comes to Iraq... look most Europeans thought that Iraq had WMD's, however it was when your leadership strating changing the reasons like
1. Iraq was a training ground for AQ - FALSE even Tony Blair said it
2. Saddam and Bin Laden were buddies - FALSE
3. To Free Iraq of Saddam - thats fine, but why now? And why when the US were supporting other questionable regimes? And why did your leadership say that Saddam could stay in power if he gave up WMD's??
4. Because he tried to kill your President's daddy
5. Yellow Cake

All this above made Europeans realise that your leadership did not give a damn about WMD's, they wanted this war and they said some pretty BS to get it. Thats why I was against the Iraq War, plus I didn't think it would a good idea....turns out right.

I guess all you Europeans didn't read the Joint Resolution. This resolution contains the legal reasons we went into Iraq. The above is evidence that you haven't taken the time to READ the TRUE reasons we and 34 other nations went in, including many in Europe:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

This document contains 1,857 words. Do share with us how many are devoted to Al Qaeda and WMDs. I can tell you that barely over 200 were. That amounts to about 10% of the document for those of you who appear to be mathematically challenged.

As for your argument about Yellow Cake; over 500 tons of the Iraqi yellow cake were just sold to Canada recently and shipped from Iraq.

“Non existant” Yellowcake Uranium Moved From Iraq to Canada - Blogger News Network
Iraq's nuclear 'yellowcake' moved to Canada | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/06/2008

You were saying?

What so we have to follow the US, agree with and do anything what they say like an obedient dog? Europeans are a free people, with their own opinions. You cant chastice them for having their own mind and disagreeing with you.

No Garza, certain European nations are totally free to thumb their noses at an ally who freed them from tyranny, forgave much of their war debt and worked to create Liberal Democracies which supplanted Dictatorships.

After all, what are friends for if you can’t bite the hand that liberated you right? How dare the US for expecting it’s ALLIES to support the decision to actually ENFORCE resolutions Saddam thumbed his nose at for a decade and preserve the precious oil resources Europe depends on from the Middle East.

Besides all the oil contracts had long gone to US companies anyway .

I see that facts are not your forte’.

The last time I checked when the US disagrees with a war, they generally don’t fight it. 1914-17 and 1939-1941 spring to mind. But when Europe disagrees with a war, we are lambasted??

Wow, this statement is profound in its level of denial and ignorance. Last time I checked, the US entered the war in WWI and helped bring it to an abrupt end.

Last time I checked, the US sent tons of war time weapons and supplies to France and Britain during WWI.

Last time I checked, it was the US involvement in WWII that finally brought it to a quick end and helped to liberate Europe from the grip of Fascist dictatorships.

Last time I checked, it was the US that sent tons of weapons, fuel and supplies to Britain and Russia which helped fend off the Nazi domination until we eventually entered the war.

Last time I checked, it was the US that kept its troops at great cost in Europe for 50 years to defend it against possible Soviet Communist aggression.

But hey, why worry yourself about FACTS and HISTORY; you are free to spit in the face of America and weakly argue that America is the bad guy and Saddam was innocent.

That is why so many Americans bought and paid for Europe’s freedom; so it could eventually shove a stick in our eye when their pacifist policies didn’t mesh with our desire to remove terrorist threats and enforce UN resolutions.

Other than Britain, France and Germany have been pretty pathetic in their commitment to UN resolutions and enforcement and quick to benefit economically from despots who corrupt UN programs like the oil-for-food program; why change now?

Yeah of course we are all eager to please America. :roll: A team is not a team if one player dictates the play.

No you don’t need to please America. You are FREE now to do whatever it is you all do; which is basically nothing, to preserve your freedom and defend Democracy from despots, thugs and dictators.

How nice that Europe can spend so much of their GDP on social welfare and leave their defense on the backs of the US taxpayer.

Did it ever occur to you why Europeans can spend so little on their own defense?

Hey, why let FACTS get in the way of your denial!! Europe knows that it can shove that stick in Americas eye, and we dumb hick Americans will continue to defend their freedoms and oil supply at no cost to Europe.

 

[Slainte]

He confronted the axis of evil.

And what were Merkel's and Sarkozy's position on the most high profile aspect of this move, the invasion of Iraq?

 

[GottaHurt]

When it comes to Iraq... look most Europeans thought that Iraq had WMD's, however it was when your leadership strating changing the reasons like

So when you make statements like:

"Europeans are a free people, with their own opinions."

Those opinions become null and void when our leadership says so?

1. Iraq was a training ground for AQ - FALSE even Tony Blair said it

Really. So if Tony Blair says it, then it's 100% unrefutable?

For AQ, maybe, maybe not. There is satellite evidence that shows training facilities in Iraq, and defectors have stated their purpose as such.

Photos Prove Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Terrorists

2. Saddam and Bin Laden were buddies - FALSE

No need to debunk this, because you can't prove that it is false.

3. To Free Iraq of Saddam - thats fine, but why now? And why when the US were supporting other questionable regimes? And why did your leadership say that Saddam could stay in power if he gave up WMD's??

Hard to say. How many wars have been fought throughout history and for what reasons? How many countries have changed positions on who they support, or don't support?

What was the Trojan War fought over again?

4. Because he tried to kill your President's daddy

So what.

5. Yellow Cake

Hmmm, if you're saying there was no yellow cake...

Canada just bought 550 metric tons from Iraq.

US Removes Iraq’s ‘Yellowcake’ To Canada | Sweetness & Light

All this above made Europeans realise that your leadership did not give a damn about WMD's, they wanted this war and they said some pretty BS to get it. Thats why I was against the Iraq War, plus I didn't think it would a good idea....turns out right.

Yes we did/do care about WMD's.

Saddam buried:

Ammunition/weapons

CNN.com - Huge*underground hideout*uncovered in Iraq - Jun 5, 2005

Saddam buried aircraft:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi aircraft 'buried in desert'

Saddam buried himself:

CNN.com - Saddam 'caught like a rat' in a hole - Dec. 15, 2003

Yet people will fight tooth and nail saying "No WMD's have been found"

I say, "No WMD's have been found, yet".

If he buried everything else, including himself, it's only logical to conclude the WMD's are buried somewhere.

What so we have to follow the US, agree with and do anything what they say like an obedient dog? Europeans are a free people, with their own opinions. You cant chastice them for having their own mind and disagreeing with you.

Yet it's perfectly fine for Europeans to do it to us. :roll:

The US totally overreacted over this, changing French Fries to Freedom fries. But this is nothing new, in 1917 some parts of the US banned playing Beethoven, in 1941, throwing Americans with Japanese orgins into conc camps without trial etc etc. America really does get war fever. I dont know why you guys picked on the French so much, since the whole security council including Russia and China would have vetoed. But hey better not piss of the Chinese too much eh?

Yes, yes we did. We took the necessary measures to perpetuate self preservation.

As opposed to the Europeans who collaborated and sipped coffee with the Germans, as they watched the deportation and slaughter of their own countrymen.

Wow! Only two years after?? They really could wait to get their greedy hands on Iraq right? Why did they wait for two years when the first 3-6 months after Saddam was toppled Iraq was pretty stable.
Also setting consuls in Nation's Captials is pretty common and the norm. It would be strange if France DIDN'T put a consulship there.
Besides all the oil contracts had long gone to US companies anyway.

French oil giant TotalFinaElf, which has contracts worth up to $4 billion to develop Iraq's Majnoon oil field, has said it expects that contract to be honored.

CNN.com - Companies battle to rebuild Iraq - Jan. 14, 2004

So Europe disagreeing with Iraq is "turning their backs on us"? The last time I checked when the US disagrees with a war, they generally dont fight it. 1914-17 and 1939-1941 spring to mind. But when Europe disagrees with a war, we are lambasted??

But we did bail out Europe in WWI and WWII, and Western Europe has now known peace for its longest period in recorded history. Three cheers for America for stepping in and not only saving Europe, but keeping the peace for over half a century now.

I really wish it was an American/British table, but your leadership doesnt even listen to the British leadership. It is actually an all American table, with a "we will do what we want and to the hell with the lot of you." If the US wants to the title of leader of the free world it has to be a leader. People NEVER follow arrogance.

When you're paying the piper, you get to call the tune. We've supplied more than just ammo and missiles to various countries in the war.

Army 'vacuum' missile hits Taliban - Times Online

We are the leaders of the free world, and the world turns to us for help.

Really? Well you better back up a bit. Because the US people believe they are headed in the wrong direction.

Polls are shifting.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

(look at the poll on the economy, Americans think the media is hyping it to be worse than it really is)

Yeah of course we are all eager to please America.

Noted and appreciated.

A team is not a team if one player dictates the play.

Wrong, that's why teams have captains. To dictate the strategy and keep the team focused, disciplining when neceassary, praising when deserved, and always maintaining an outwardly positive disposition.

 

[GarzaUK]

I guess all you Europeans didn't read the Joint Resolution. This resolution contains the legal reasons we went into Iraq. The above is evidence that you haven't taken the time to READ the TRUE reasons we and 34 other nations went in, including many in Europe:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

This document contains 1,857 words. Do share with us how many are devoted to Al Qaeda and WMDs. I can tell you that barely over 200 were. That amounts to about 10% of the document for those of you who appear to be mathematically challenged.

As for your argument about Yellow Cake; over 500 tons of the Iraqi yellow cake were just sold to Canada recently and shipped from Iraq.

“Non existant” Yellowcake Uranium Moved From Iraq to Canada - Blogger News Network
Iraq's nuclear 'yellowcake' moved to Canada | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/06/2008

You were saying?

I just repeated what your leadership said, nothing more. If very little was about AQ or WMD's? Then why did your leadership champion these reasons so? And you failed to answer why they offered to let Saddam stay in power if he handed over WMD's.

No Garza, certain European nations are totally free to thumb their noses at an ally who freed them from tyranny, forgave much of their war debt and worked to create Liberal Democracies which supplanted Dictatorships.

So the blood of young Europeands must be shed for a debt in WW2?

After all, what are friends for if you can’t bite the hand that liberated you right? How dare the US for expecting it’s ALLIES to support the decision to actually ENFORCE resolutions Saddam thumbed his nose at for a decade and preserve the precious oil resources Europe depends on from the Middle East.

Who's biting your hand? We disagreed with you. The Iraq War was not necessary. The US was not threatened by Iraq, the US did not need liberated from anything and therefore we did not need to come your aid. If the US was threatened, then maybe you might have a case.

Wow, this statement is profound in its level of denial and ignorance. Last time I checked, the US entered the war in WWI and helped bring it to an abrupt end.

You do know that the WW1 began in 1914 right, not 1917? Why did the US not go into the war in 1914, because the US disagreed with the war and had no need to enter it. Europe seen no need for the Iraq war, so we did no need to enter it.

Last time I checked, the US sent tons of war time weapons and supplies to France and Britain during WWI.

For free? Just wondering?

Last time I checked, it was the US involvement in WWII that finally brought it to a quick end and helped to liberate Europe from the grip of Fascist dictatorships.

Yes. You were crucial to the defeat of Nazi Germany. So was the Soviet Union and the British Empire. What has this to do with Iraq?

Last time I checked, it was the US that sent tons of weapons, fuel and supplies to Britain and Russia which helped fend off the Nazi domination until we eventually entered the war.

Yes true. Russian manpower fought off Nazi domination as well. As did Britains stragetic position.

Last time I checked, it was the US that kept its troops at great cost in Europe for 50 years to defend it against possible Soviet Communist aggression.

For the benefit of Europe and the US. US needed allies after all.

But hey, why worry yourself about FACTS and HISTORY; you are free to spit in the face of America and weakly argue that America is the bad guy and Saddam was innocent.

I havent spit in the face of America. I didn't say America was the bad guy and I NEVER stated that Saddam was innocent. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

That is why so many Americans bought and paid for Europe’s freedom; so it could eventually shove a stick in our eye when their pacifist policies didn’t mesh with our desire to remove terrorist threats and enforce UN resolutions.

So did Canada, so did Australia, So did New Zealand, so did India, so did Europeans, they all bought and paid for European freedom. This does not give America a blank cheque to demand Europe's following. Last time I checked America is not the dictator of Europe.

No you don’t need to please America. You are FREE now to do whatever it is you all do; which is basically nothing, to preserve your freedom and defend Democracy from despots, thugs and dictators.

Yet you get angry when our freedom is not to your liking??

How nice that Europe can spend so much of their GDP on social welfare and leave their defense on the backs of the US taxpayer.

Did it ever occur to you why Europeans can spend so little on their own defense?

Because at the minute, we dont need it. Fighting against terrorism doesnt need a big military. Plus we like solving the problems that we have here rather than ignoring them.

Hey, why let FACTS get in the way of your denial!! Europe knows that it can shove that stick in Americas eye, and we dumb hick Americans will continue to defend their freedoms and oil supply at no cost to Europe.

So wait you agree that we can exercise our right to express our freedom. Yet get angry when we do when it doesnt suit you?? That has to be ironic in some sense lol.

I am shoving a stick in eye of America for exercising my freedom to disagree with the US? Isn't that what American soliders who died in Europe wanted in the first place, excercise my freedom?

I think I got the gist of your post that Europe basically "owes America one". But its not like a favour where we borrowed your car when ours broke down. When war is concerned we are talking about YOUNG MENS LIVES here. We will not throw them away for something as unnecessary as the Iraq War.

 

[GottaHurt]

What the hell makes you "pro-Bush"?

He stands firm in his beliefs.

Name me one thing Bush has done which you think Merkel and Sarkozy support, which you don't think Kerry would do.

Reaching across the pond and working together, instead of launching childish insults and pouting like Chirac and Schroeder did.

Kerry is irrelevant, he's a loser.

You are awaree that Sarkozy is from the SAME party as Chirac and that Merkel is in coalition with Schroeders old party.

You do realize that McCain is from the same party as Reagan, and that Iraq Obama is in coalition with Jimmy Carters old party.

Tbh honest not that interesting. Most Europeans know that we need to work with America, regardless of who the President is, I just think it would have been easier to do that with either Gore or Kerry.

Yes, it would have been easier, because Kerry and Gore are spineless pushovers. I know this is hard for most liberals to understand, but we elect a President to look out after our best interests, not win a popularity contest.

Right, but you seemed to imply only young people and the media liked Obama and also possibly that a silent majority would prefer McCain. Opinion polls show that is completely false.

That's right, it's pretty obvious that Iraq Obama is the darling of the media right now. I was watching coverage of where he was going to speack today, and the majority of the crowd I saw, were young, he's also very popular with the youth here stateside. Where's your argument?

McCain? I said nothing of McCain or a silent majority. I said the voters in Europe elected pro Bush administrations.

European opinion polls mean doodle squat here in America.

Did they have him in front by 45 to 60 points at any time?

I was showing how polls can be way off

 

[PeteEU]

I guess all you Europeans didn't read the Joint Resolution. This resolution contains the legal reasons we went into Iraq. The above is evidence that you haven't taken the time to READ the TRUE reasons we and 34 other nations went in, including many in Europe:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

This document contains 1,857 words. Do share with us how many are devoted to Al Qaeda and WMDs. I can tell you that barely over 200 were. That amounts to about 10% of the document for those of you who appear to be mathematically challenged.

Pft, same old same old excused and revisionist crap from the American right.

GarzaUK is 100% correct in his assessment. The public around the world were not sold the Iraq war based on "violations" of UN resolutions and no one is buying that Saddam after a decade of fierce sanctions suddenly merited to be "called" on his UN resolution failings.

The war was sold on 2 things.. Al Q and Saddam were buddies and Iraq had WMD and the finger on the trigger. Both were false, and we all knew the first one was false, and the second one was at best... odd as there was no credible evidence what so ever... especially when we saw the BBC story about Saddams former WMD czar claiming in 1995 that all WMD material were destroyed after the first gulf war. A fact the US ignored.

As for your argument about Yellow Cake; over 500 tons of the Iraqi yellow cake were just sold to Canada recently and shipped from Iraq.

“Non existant” Yellowcake Uranium Moved From Iraq to Canada - Blogger News Network
Iraq's nuclear 'yellowcake' moved to Canada | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/06/2008

You were saying?

Yellow cake from BEFORE the 1991 Gulf War was recently sold to Canda lol. The argument at the time was that Iraq was attempting to get yellow cake (as said by Fuhrer Bush in his State of the Union). Nice try to twist historical facts.

No Garza, certain European nations are totally free to thumb their noses at an ally who freed them from tyranny, forgave much of their war debt and worked to create Liberal Democracies which supplanted Dictatorships.

After all, what are friends for if you can’t bite the hand that liberated you right? How dare the US for expecting it’s ALLIES to support the decision to actually ENFORCE resolutions Saddam thumbed his nose at for a decade and preserve the precious oil resources Europe depends on from the Middle East.

Oh boy here we go... the usual guilt trip attempt.

Okay lets remind you Yanks that if it was not for the French you would not be a country today. So why should you not listen to France on ALL issues? Or maybe we should thank the Vikings for discovering the continent in the first place..

Wow, this statement is profound in its level of denial and ignorance. Last time I checked, the US entered the war in WWI and helped bring it to an abrupt end.

Not entirely correct. The US entry into WW1 had almost no military benefit (as the US commanders did not listen and got tons of Americans killed for no reason), but the mental boost the allies got and the mental hit the Germans got, had a huge impact to end the war. That is historical fact.

Last time I checked, the US sent tons of war time weapons and supplies to France and Britain during WWI.

Well, not exactly correct. The US had next to no military hardware to sell and no industry to produce weapons. When the US troops finally did enter the war, they were poorly equipped and badly trained. Only thing they had going for them was their rifle skills, which were second to non.

Last time I checked, it was the US involvement in WWII that finally brought it to a quick end and helped to liberate Europe from the grip of Fascist dictatorships.

Depends on what you define as quick. The Nazis were on the run before the US has fired a shot in Europe. El Alamien and Stalingrad had both happened before the US set foot on European/African soil and those 2 battles are widely accepted as the turning points in Europe.

Last time I checked, it was the US that sent tons of weapons, fuel and supplies to Britain and Russia which helped fend off the Nazi domination until we eventually entered the war.

That is true, and that's despite Congress and most US politicians either attempting to block the lend lease or out right rooting for the Nazis. Granddaddy Bush got a nice profit from working with the Nazis after all.

Last time I checked, it was the US that kept its troops at great cost in Europe for 50 years to defend it against possible Soviet Communist aggression.

LOL like European nations did not pay a bundle to have US troops here.

But hey, why worry yourself about FACTS and HISTORY; you are free to spit in the face of America and weakly argue that America is the bad guy and Saddam was innocent.

No you seem not to grasp the facts of history and as for "spitting in the face of America".. blame your President for any spitting as it was his brain dead actions that resulted in Europe and most of the world turning their backs on America after we rallied behind the US after 9/11.

Saddam was never ever ever innocent and no one in Europe has ever claimed that. In fact the only ones that have even uttered those words, were right wingers in an attempt to bash non believers and paint them as pro terrorist something.

That is why so many Americans bought and paid for Europe’s freedom; so it could eventually shove a stick in our eye when their pacifist policies didn’t mesh with our desire to remove terrorist threats and enforce UN resolutions.

Hey we had no problems in removing terrorist threats and enforce UN resolutions. It was Bush that wanted to take out Saddam for some reason, and ignore the terrorist threat in Afghanistan.

Other than Britain, France and Germany have been pretty pathetic in their commitment to UN resolutions and enforcement and quick to benefit economically from despots who corrupt UN programs like the oil-for-food program; why change now?

Hahah, comes from the nation that has vetoed most UNSC resolutions the last decade. As for oil for food.. post a topic and lets discuss that...

No you don’t need to please America. You are FREE now to do whatever it is you all do; which is basically nothing, to preserve your freedom and defend Democracy from despots, thugs and dictators.

So when is the US gonna go after the despots that it backs with military hardware, money and political backing?..Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on?

How nice that Europe can spend so much of their GDP on social welfare and leave their defense on the backs of the US taxpayer.

Defence from what? What armies are going to invade Europe? What armies are going to invade the US!?

Did it ever occur to you why Europeans can spend so little on their own defense?

Yes, we are not bloodthirsty and believe that the only good policy is to beat the crap out of those that disagree with us. We kinda got over that phase of our history with WW2.

Hey, why let FACTS get in the way of your denial!! Europe knows that it can shove that stick in Americas eye, and we dumb hick Americans will continue to defend their freedoms and oil supply at no cost to Europe.

Give me a break. Defend the oil supply? You do know the "defence" of the oil supply has pushed up the price to over 100 dollars per barrel right and empowered the true threat to the world Iran? Not to mention revitalized Al Q around the world and drove the US into a paranoid frenzy that has lead to the murders of Sikhs to the forced removal of nipple rings and strip searches at airports of Americans and non Americans. Some defence you got there... making things worse.. but i guess its good for business.

 

[Slainte]

He stands firm in his beliefs.

What?

I'm asking what policies the current French and German governments have adopted which makes them pro-Bush.

Reaching across the pond and working together, instead of launching childish insults and pouting like Chirac and Schroeder did.

I seem to remeber most of the insults coming from cretins like Rumsfeld, Feith et al.

Fischer and Villepin to name but two generally offered insightful criticism about the dangers of invading Iraq, particularly the difficulties that would arise in reconstructing and reunifiying the country. I think in retrospect their warnings and doubts have been completely justified.

You do realize that McCain is from the same party as Reagan, and that Iraq Obama is in coalition with Jimmy Carters old party.

I'm not sure what the latter means and I don't think this answers my point.

You claimed that the election of Merkel and Sarkozy signalled European voters moving away from the "fraud", "socialist" parties of Chirac and Schroeder when in reality those parties maintained a strng presence in government.

Yes, it would have been easier

This is really all I wanted.

we elect a President to look out after our best interests, not win a popularity contest.

As you should. I believe a strong relationship between Europe and the US is integral to US interests.

I was watching coverage of where he was going to speack today, and the majority of the crowd I saw, were young, he's also very popular with the youth here stateside. Where's your argument?

My argument is that a 60 (sixty) point lead in an opinion poll indicates that Obama is more popular than McCain across pretty much any age group.

 

[rsixing]

Wait, is this thread about bush or is this yet another deflection from actually discussing any critisism of the new king? :roll:

I think it's a valid comparison. If we can't judge the potentiality of the future (in this instance a sitting president and potential future president) by what has happened or not happened in the past then how will be ever learn from history?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your skepticism and angst but at least Obama is taking a very cogent and defined position. This in the least shows an effort on his part to deal with international states concerning international situations.

 

[GottaHurt]

What?

You asked me "what the hell makes you pro-Bush?"

I guess it's the language barrier, as another poster read it the same way as I did, and gave you a response as well.

You might want to brush up on your English

I'm asking what policies the current French and German governments have adopted which makes them pro-Bush.

Too early to tell in regard to policy, as I stated previously, their willingness to reach across the pond and extend an olive branch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/europe/07cnd-france.html?em&ex=1178769600&en=14084193b8e0dca5&ei=5087%0A

I seem to remeber most of the insults coming from cretins like Rumsfeld, Feith et al.

Fischer and Villepin to name but two generally offered insightful criticism about the dangers of invading Iraq, particularly the difficulties that would arise in reconstructing and reunifiying the country. I think in retrospect their warnings and doubts have been completely justified.

They pitched a fit because they (France) were going to lose their telecommunication and oil contracts, and the Germans were going to lose their bunker contracts. They could've been on board and been right back in the saddle, but no, they screwed themselves with their silly political posturing.

You claimed that the election of Merkel and Sarkozy signalled European voters moving away from the "fraud", "socialist" parties of Chirac and Schroeder when in reality those parties maintained a strng presence in government.

Claimed?

Corruption scandals in the Paris region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chirac and corruption are practically synonymous.

As you should. I believe a strong relationship between Europe and the US is integral to US interests.

Agreed, but our interests should always come first.

My argument is that a 60 (sixty) point lead in an opinion poll indicates that Obama is more popular than McCain across pretty much any age group.

Again, you cling to some worthless European poll.

 

[jfuh]

And here is Obama already pretending to be president at a campaign stop using my tax dollars.

Using your tax dollars? Care to speculate how much of your tax dollars were spent on it?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Using your tax dollars? Care to speculate how much of your tax dollars were spent on it?

there is a thread already on how much his pandering trip has cost us. feel free to use the "search" feature.

 

[Hatuey]

there is a thread already on how much his pandering trip has cost us. feel free to use the "search" feature.

Where? Link?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

is your search feature malfunctioning? :roll:

 

[Hatuey]

is your search feature malfunctioning? :roll:

Doesn't show up I used : Obama, taxes, flights, trips - nothing shows.

 

[SmilesAndFrowns]

Hmm...Is Obama already the president or something or did i miss something...or what country is he running for president in? Im confused...? The World?

I find it very odd, indeed, odd. Hmm....

 

[jfuh]

there is a thread already on how much his pandering trip has cost us. feel free to use the "search" feature.

You must have missed the part about debating where when you claim something, it is your job to support it.
So if you're going to say that he's spending millions of my tax dollars on this trip or a whole lot of, it's your job to provide me with a credible source to. The burden of proof rests with you. I'm not even asking you to prove some wild goose chase that may be difficult to support, I was simply asking you how much it had cost us and on what do you base this on.
That some "blogger" said so doesn't make it so.

 

[jfuh]

Hmm...Is Obama already the president or something or did i miss something...or what country is he running for president in? Im confused...? The World?

I find it very odd, indeed, odd. Hmm....

It is actually an interesting point you bring up. Yes Obama is running for the leader of the free world - so the way I see it having such a great reception from one of our strongest allies is a very good thing.
So what's odd about it?

What would've McCain's reception have been?

 

[MSgt]

If this was true Europeans would have rejected the Afganistan war outright or in fact every war America pursued after the Cold war.

In fact the majority of Europeans supported the war in Afganistan.

This is very true. Continental Europe doesn't have to object outright to anything. In fact, they simply send the bare minimum and behave as national guard abroad behind American troops. This has always been the case. America doesn't need a cheerleading squad. We don't need a bunch of Europeans giving us applause from afar as they figure how little they can get away with. We need our allies to step up and stop behaving as if the bare minimum is good enough. Ever since Afghanistan, you and everyone else have heard American and European leaders request more from NATO. Seven years later, the probable next President of the United States continues this request.

Iraq was about rejection. Afghanistan is about reluctant duty. America has always given Europe far more respect when they were in need. Even as late as the 1990's Europeans were the recipient of an overwhleming American force to deal with yet another European mess. The bare minimum is nothing we ever consider when aiding our allies.

Because the objectives were clear and concise. Get the people of 9/11 and make sure Afghanistan was not a training ground for Islamic terrorists.
When it comes to Iraq... look most Europeans thought that Iraq had WMD's, however it was when your leadership strating changing the reasons like
1. Iraq was a training ground for AQ - FALSE even Tony Blair said it
2. Saddam and Bin Laden were buddies - FALSE
3. To Free Iraq of Saddam - thats fine, but why now? And why when the US were supporting other questionable regimes? And why did your leadership say that Saddam could stay in power if he gave up WMD's??
4. Because he tried to kill your President's daddy
5. Yellow Cake

All this above made Europeans realise that your leadership did not give a damn about WMD's,

Turns out wrong. And your numbered excuses are mere excuses designed to stay ignorant and continu your stubborn protests despite clear understanding of the situation. Iraq is in very good shape these days and it took them to destroy each other in tribal feuding and Al-Queda to show the entire Middle East how little it cares about Muslims to figure it out. Culture is fate.

But what you are really saying is that Europeans are generally too stupid to see beyond political BS. Let me take your above mentioned excuses for apathy and shatter thme with a larger picture realization. Iraq was always about something greater for this region and was clearly stated to the UN prior to kick off. If Europeans chose to pretend that WMD was the only factor and chose this an excuse to run...then so be it. The fact remains that as long as the Middle East continues to spiral under dictators, brutal regimes, and fundamental religious prescription, Europe will be the recipient of the radical immigration issues it is already spinning from...not America. Al-Queda hurt American soil even more so than our enemies in WWII did. How many 9/11s do you thimnk is in our future after we demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now how many terrorist attacks will Europe endure because of its reluctance to address these issues?

But.....according to you...the real threat was just an old man in a cave and his Tali-Ban hosts. You Europeans absolutely fail to understand a very simple thing. We can create a Homeland Security, guard our borders, create missile defense programs, block visas, and all the other things that people think will eventually create an iron bubble around us. In the long run, this will not work. A city killing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon will now fit in a backpack. Many weapons don't require transport across borders. Enemies (radical immigrants) can beam directions and instructions anywhere in the world. We aren't going to prevent disease from spreading over our borders. Once it has started there, we aren't going to prevent environmental destruction from spreading here. Millions of people all over the world are moving out of their home contries-either because the grass is greener somewhere else, or more likely because live is unbearable at home. You want to create a real stability in this world and save your own identities and security? It starts by addressing our Cold war mistakes and all the dictators, monsters, and religious regimes abroad that create the individual problems, which evolve into organizations, which eventually seek an enemy.

Once these type immigrants (Cold War creations) make it to Europe and even America, the migrant-both legal and illegal-often transfer to the first world the instabilities and chaos endemic in the third world; and so they put strains on a nation's security and social systems that its systems may not be able to handle. There are humanitarian issues, religious tolerance issues, political issues. Extreme Islamist immigrants bring in mosques and leaders who encourage radicalism and violence. And what of our cultures? We encourage their right to practice their religious prescriptions. The fix is simple. If the conditions are made more tolerable back in their home countries, people will stay home. We have a clear and perfect example of this with India. Many of the best, brightest, and most highly educated emigrated from India. But as capacity was built up and good jobs became increasingly available, the best and the brightest decided to stay home. But in today's Islamic immigrant world, the best and the brightest aren't the ones coming. Multi-million-inhabited third world cities rarely have a viable physical infrastructure, or political and social structure, and they breed every kind of social, health, and environmental evil. Whatever they choose to leave behind, they will rarely choose to off load their life long indoctrinations in fundamental religion. This they bring with them almost every time and they seek the mosques that will accomodate them. And it's far easier to get to Europe than it is to get across an ocean to America. In fact, the majority of the onse that do come to America are the more educated or wealthy ones.

Anyone who fails to understand what these changes mean, and what they bring to countries and societies, will be lost in today's world. Continental Europe is lost. Anyone who tries to apply mid-twentieth-century templates (Cold War) to these problems will find himself lost, confused, and powerless to handle them. This is continental Europe and their need to keep things as they are with all the dictators sitting high on thrones keeping "stability."

Europe will wake up as it always does eventually. But by then, it will be fighting for its security in its own lands again and not abroad where America has been trying to keep it.

Europeans are a free people, with their own opinions. You cant chastice them for having their own mind and disagreeing with you.

I can chastize them all I want, because in the end, it will be my country's sweat, treasure, and blood that gets to deal with European narrow vision when the fanatical element of the Middle East erupts all over Europe. Once again, Europe's refusal to acknowledge a threat will smack it in the face. And just who do you think they will need to send more than their bare minimum?

Perhaps we should have "supported" Europe's Bosnia and Kosovo crisis and applauded while sending only a couple jets and a BN of troops. Still failing to see why Americans reserve the right to chastize European opinion of things? Was Bosnia or Kosovo a matter of national security for America or were we simply needed by our allies? This sense of duty towards ally has never been reciprocated by France or Germany towards us. And it wasn't until Iraq when most America finally figured it out.

Wow! Only two years after??

I agree it would be strange. In fact, it would be very un DeGaulic if they hadn't. The fact is that they wanted no part of this out of fear and they used the WMD excuse to turn their backs on far more than America. And after the work to topple Saddam Hussein was complete by America, France started making moves to get involved politically just to be a part of the what was to eventually come and not be left out. And did they send any troops to help defend the streets of the consulate building? Or was this yet another venture where the bare minimum would do while American troops sweated the event? And did they send apologies towards the newly created Iraqi government or to the overwhelming population that voted for the first time in history on the laws that would govern them for deeming them insignificant in the endeavor to rid them of their abuser, but worthy enough to see a French consulate building after someone else did the dirty work? This is not new. France has always jumped into the issues even when they hadn't a horse in the race. De Gaul politics still streers the ship.

So Europe disagreeing with Iraq is "turning their backs on us"? The last time I checked when the US disagrees with a war, they generally dont fight it. 1914-17 and 1939-1941 spring to mind. But when Europe disagrees with a war, we are lambasted??

You seem to gloss over that America eventually showed up for both of your European civil wars and fought. And one of those was after we were largely fighting the Japanese by ourselves in a much larger theater where you sent nobody. Unlike the French, we didn't watch from a far, criticize every move, and then sneak in a consulate building behind European lines.

I really wish it was an American/British table, but your leadership doesnt even listen to the British leadership. It is actually an all American table, with a "we will do what we want and to the hell with the lot of you." If the US wants to the title of leader of the free world it has to be a leader. People NEVER follow arrogance.

Haha. They have been following it ever since the end of WWII. The difference today is that there isn't a big bad red wolf on the other side of a concrete wall in Germany and an American military struggling to contain communism all over the world. Today, your nations get to sit back and criticize and pretend to "support" events that will eventually overwhelm Europe before it ever does little more than thump us.

Really? Well you better back up a bit. Because the US people believe they are headed in the wrong direction.

The US people believe they are headed in the wrong direction whenever DirectTV goes out. The fact is that what occurred with Iraq had to happen and it should have happened sooner. If it had, we wouldn't have such a hard time today with this region and what has to be done. The Middle East reflects Europe at the turn of the twentieth century. They will have to destroy enough of themselves before they are able to acknowledge that they have to start working together.

Yeah of course we are all eager to please America. A team is not a team if one player dictates the play.

Like throughout the Cold War? Recognize the world you live in. The next and current threat is knocking on your doors and you don't even see it. You are too busy placating or bitching to Islamic fundamentalism in your own neighborhoods to realize that immigration from these wrecked and socially disfunctional nations are increasingly seeking to be near your homes. And as they are already proving to do, bringing the third world with them.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

This is very true. Continental Europe doesn't have to object outright to anything. In fact, they simply send the bare minimum and behave as national guard abroad behind American troops. This has always been the case. America doesn't need a cheerleading squad. We don't need a bunch of Europeans giving us applause from afar as they figure how little they can get away with. We need our allies to step up and stop behaving as if the bare minimum is good enough. Ever since Afghanistan, you and everyone else have heard American and European leaders request more from NATO. Seven years later, the probable next President of the United States continues this request.

But one of the most important leason of the Iraq war is the importance of good peace keeping troops then rebuilding a country. That USA can defeat any country but creating security in that country is a lot harder challenge. Their Europeans have done a good job of keeping the peace in large areas of Afganisthan for many years.

 

[MSgt]

But one of the most important leason of the Iraq war is the importance of good peace keeping troops then rebuilding a country.

We didn't go into Iraq as heavy as we should have to occupy correctly and this is why we have had to correct the chaos for years the hard way. What do you think is happening in Afghanistan? Just one more example where even our "allies" refuse to do the job correctly. Mass deployments is what sees an effort quickly to bed. Not feeble attempts to prove support and a never ending bare minimum deployment schedule year after year.

Their Europeans have done a good job of keeping the peace in large areas of Afganisthan for many years.

No they have not. This is horribly innacurate. It's a lovely sentoiment that goes to imply that "we are all in it together" but we are not. When things begin to fall apart, it is American or British troops that come to the rescue. It is American gunships that provide most of the air support (you would think that a decade since Bosnia/Kosovo is long enough for NATO to figure out that it isn't sharing the burden.) It is American helicopters that lift NATO troops about. Aside from the British, the rest of NATO have done very little that didn't involve an accompanyment of U.S. troops or our air support. They purposefully design plays that will keep their troops out of danger. Europeans have done as little as possible AND some have complained the whole way....

Norwegian troops are largely in the north of Afghanistan. Some do have a combat role, but many are involved only in reconstruction. Even that is controversial for some members of the Norwegian government.NATO's Role in Afghanistan Strains Alliance : NPR

The Dutch and the British have sent troops to the combat zones in the south of Afghanistan, with the Americans and the Canadians. Other countries, such as Germany and Norway, have sent fewer combat troops and not to the more dangerous south. NATO's Role in Afghanistan Strains Alliance : NPR

German troops are on display whenever a foreign dignitary visits Berlin, but for obvious historical reasons, the Germans do not flout their military might. When U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested last month that NATO was in danger of evolving into a two-tier alliance, it ruffled some feathers in Berlin.NATO's Role in Afghanistan Strains Alliance : NPR

Australia wants a major reconsideration of Western strategy in Afghanistan and will not increase troop levels in the country until "underperforming" NATO countries shoulder their fair share of the burden, the Australian defense minister said Tuesday.Australia criticizes NATO over Afghanistan strategy - International Herald Tribune

It is clear to even an outsider what has been going on. In the most dangerous south we see the anglo America/Britian/Canadian alliance accompanied by the Dutch. Do you actually think the Dutch or Canadians are spearheading many things? Canada has threated to pull completely out and abandoning their "support" for America if NATO doesn't offer more help. Norwegians reserve themselves to safer terrain and focus on handing out food rations. Germany consistently seeks cover and an excuse to stray far from a fight, but gets offended when it is called out for it. Australia, which only has 970 troops deployed, even finds NATO's support lacking. We even have the probable next American President (the world's Jesus Christ) demanding more support from NATO. France has given many troops to the effort, but this is largely about a show of good will after the fall out and far less to do with supporting America. With France And you state that Europeans have done a fine job in Afghanistan as if they haven't had big brother over head and taking most of the risks?

The truth is that Afghanistan will continue to be a needless mess as long as America doesn't direct almost complete focus on it or at least start sending more Marines to Afghanistan instead of needless deployments to Iraq. For some reason, it has become an accepted thing in this world for our allies to apply the minimum of pressure and expect America to cover the overwhelming mission....because we always have. This is the result of Europe licking its wounds for fifty years under an American blanket of security and emerging as false pacifists.

 

[PeteEU]

This is horribly innacurate. What are you talking about? Aside from the British, the rest of NATO have done very little that didn't involve an accompanyment of U.S. troops or our air support. Europeans have done as little as possible AND complained the whole way....

It is clear to even an outsider what has been going on. In the most dangerous south we see the anglo America/Britian/Canadian alliance accompanied by the Dutch. Do you actually think the Dutch or Canadians are spearheading many things? Canada has threated to pull completely out and abandoning their "support" for America if NATO doesn't offer more help. Norwegians reserve themselves to safer terrain and focus on handing out food rations. Germany consistently seeks cover and an excuse to stray far from a fight. Australia, which only has 970 troops deployed, even finds NATO's support lacking. We even have the probable next American President (the world's Jesus Christ) demanding more support from NATO. France has given many troops to the effort, but this is largely about a show of good will after the fall out and far less to do with supporting America. And you state that Europeans have done a fine job in Afghanistan as if they haven't had big brother over head and taking most of the risks?

NATO's original mission was peacekeeping, training and reconstruction. European countries have committed troops and done this job. There was no "full out combat" in the original plan as the Taliban were defeated and the war was "over".

You keep whining about Germany not pulling its weight when you full know (or at least should know) that Germany is a very special case. Thanks to the US (and other allies) writing their constitution and laws after WW2, Germany is not allowed to do combat outside Germany. So you can whine all you like, but its your own doing. The same goes for Japan and frankly I can accept that the Germans and Japanese are "slacking", since their history aint exactly a positive one.

As for the rest of the countries in Afghanistan. Again your are forgetting the original role of NATO in the country. Later on NATO, with lots of pushing from the Bush administration took over security in the southern part of the country, under the assumption that the Taliban were a non entity because the US had done the job they claimed. Sadly reality hit NATO fast and they realised that they had been played by the US yet again.

Now we have a fight on our hands, and countries are of course very vary in putting more troops in as its hardly popular getting your young men and women killed. The French have committed more and more troops, and other countries are thinking of the same. Like it or not someone has to be in the non violent areas of the country so that they don't disintegrate into anarchy and someone has to train the Afghan army and police. Norway, Germany and the French have a great track record doing such things in many conflict zones, so why should they not do that? As for the rest of the European countries not pulling their weight. Most countries, including my own, are at the maximum tolerance of their armed forces with various domestic and international obligations. Sure it helped that most countries finally got out of Iraq, but don't forget unlike the US, most European nations have peacekeeping obligations in many many conflict zones around the world and we only send professional soldiers on such missions.

But its not only the Europeans that are not pulling their weight, but also the US. Their own incompetence and one sided focus on Iraq has lead to the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Q in many areas, but you would not hear that from the whining US politicians and military folk and people on these boards. The complaints on lack of equipment and men have been self censored or ignored in the US for too long, and its finally hitting home.

Now how about agreeing that all our countries are a bunch of morons for not admitting their own faults on this issue and lets move forward and defeat the Taliban once and for all. Sadly as it stands now, the US is only interested in the blame game, and in killing innocent civilians .. 48+ the last week or 2 last I heard. Way to go on winning the hearts and minds of a people!

 

[MSgt]

NATO's original mission was peacekeeping, training and reconstruction. European countries have committed troops and done this job. There was no "full out combat" in the original plan as the Taliban were defeated and the war was "over".

This is an excuse. Even their peacekeeping efforts have come from behind American and British fronts. NATO has had since the end of the Cold War to pull its head out of its ass. It has had Kosovo and Bosnia as an example of what it needs to do. Years later, it still proves to be reluctant to be more than a national guard element.

You keep whining about Germany not pulling its weight when you full know (or at least should know) that Germany is a very special case. Thanks to the US (and other allies) writing their constitution and laws after WW2, Germany is not allowed to do combat outside Germany. So you can whine all you like, but its your own doing. The same goes for Japan and frankly I can accept that the Germans and Japanese are "slacking", since their history aint exactly a positive one.

Last I checked Germany is, indeed, allowed to conduct combat outside of Germany as of the early to mid 90's. In fact, Gemany deployed troops to Bosnia and Kosovo. They are currently in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and stand the chance to conduct combat if they ever deemed themselves our equals in a fight against what is supposed to be a common enemy. Another fact is that the American Pentagon's request to the German government to send its German "combat" troops to the south of Afghanistan to help us just earlier this year was refused. German parliament may send its troops abroad into combat if it wanted to.

As for the rest of the countries in Afghanistan. Again your are forgetting the original role of NATO in the country. Later on NATO, with lots of pushing from the Bush administration took over security in the southern part of the country, under the assumption that the Taliban were a non entity because the US had done the job they claimed. Sadly reality hit NATO fast and they realised that they had been played by the US yet again.

Actually, reality set in and NATO realized that is unprepared to do anything outside of what American troops have prepared for it like in Bosnoia and Kosovo still. NATO's original role does not exist anymore. Either it finds a new job or it dissolves. Your own words describe NATO as a force fully capable of doing the job once American troops have sweated and bled to make it safe for them.

Now we have a fight on our hands, and countries are of course very vary in putting more troops in as its hardly popular getting your young men and women killed.

Oh...but I thought the tag line was that Europe "supports" America in Afghanistan? So the "support" always described, relies heavily on what America can do on its own? Now that NATO has to actually earn its own way and step up.... the "support" isn't as there as Europeans want Americans to believe? This is exactly what I have stated for years and people like you defend against. You are writing my sentiments (reality and truth) right here in this post. I'm telling you Pete. Obama or no Obama, the American love affair for Europe will never be the same. The average ignorant American will never see Europe for what they thought it was merely years ago. I know what has been going on in Afghanistan. I knew what went on in Bosnia and Somalia. I know what went on in Kuwait. And I am very aware of what occurred throughout the Cold War. What people are seeing now has always been there.

The French have committed more and more troops, and other countries are thinking of the same. Like it or not someone has to be in the non violent areas of the country so that they don't disintegrate into anarchy and someone has to train the Afghan army and police. Norway, Germany and the French have a great track record doing such things in many conflict zones, so why should they not do that? As for the rest of the European countries not pulling their weight. Most countries, including my own, are at the maximum tolerance of their armed forces with various domestic and international obligations. Sure it helped that most countries finally got out of Iraq, but don't forget unlike the US, most European nations have peacekeeping obligations in many many conflict zones around the world and we only send professional soldiers on such missions.

Unlike the US? Are you speaking of the former colonial situations your nations are still letting go of like in Africa? The most widely deployed military on the face of the planet is from the U.S. It is in every continent. It is in every ocean. The U.S. diplomatically prepares many locations to receive your troops as peacekeepers. Do you realize how much diplomatic power the regional CINCs have in regards to your troop involvement from place to place? Are you aware of the collaberation between your military commanders and the American CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, etc? The overwhelming mission around the globe wears an American uniform. We are in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even Europe. Don't pretend that you have an excuse for sending the bare minimum because you have efforts in other places. The American military defines mulit-tasking. When we say we are spread too thin, we are talking about multiple fronts, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic training exercises with other allies that you are excused from but continue to feed from our table. "Spread too thin" is an exaggerated term when you use it.

But its not only the Europeans that are not pulling their weight, but also the US. Their own incompetence and one sided focus on Iraq has lead to the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Q in many areas, but you would not hear that from the whining US politicians and military folk and people on these boards. The complaints on lack of equipment and men have been self censored or ignored in the US for too long, and its finally hitting home.

Yes, you have already cleared this up above. Without American focus, NATO is largely worthless. The Commandant of the Marine Corps petitioned President Bush to start sending Marines to Afghanistan instead of Iraq earlier this year because the environment in Iraq had finally gone over the hump we have been needing and working towards. Afghanistan will be fixed as soon as we get over there to fix it. In the mean time, it would be nice to know that our European partnership could at least hold the fort without threatening to abandon the mission or bitch whenever it loses a soldier to the enemy it only fights when it has to.

Now how about agreeing that all our countries are a bunch of morons for not admitting their own faults on this issue and lets move forward and defeat the Taliban once and for all.

Because this effort is a about a region..not just about one organization in one country that hosted the sympoms of the disease. America may have been too bold in its words, but European countries need to pull their heads out of their asses. In the end, Europeans are the ones really threatened by this. The true threat is the immigration over load coming to Europe from these oppressed and brutalized populations. The Tali-Ban is only a threat because it is a symptom among many. Do you actually think we are going to come to an end where the Tali-Ban is going to sit at a table and surrender like Germany or Japan did? Or draw a line across nations as Korea did? This is an ongoing social war that will involve politicians (none worthy of the task as emerged), the military (more the bare minimum is needed), non-governmental organizations and agencies (NGOs), and international support.

Focusing on the Tali-Ban merely gives people the illusion that all of our growing problems can be fixed by destroying a small nothing of an element within a single country they used to rule.

Sadly as it stands now, the US is only interested in the blame game, and in killing innocent civilians .. 48+ the last week or 2 last I heard. Way to go on winning the hearts and minds of a people!

We won all the hearts and minds we could in the situation we were dropped into. My government's problem was believing that Iraqis would all keep thinking themselves as Iraqis. We went in to free all Iraqis as Iraqis. But it turned out quickly they didn't think of themselves as Iraqis. They wanted to be free Shiites and Kurds. And it turned out the minority Sunni was reluctant to give up the priveledges, powers, and ascendancy they had long held over all other Iraqis. It's quite impossible to win the hearts and minds of all in a situation where not slaughtering one tribe for favor of the other will earn hatred. This was a matter of ignorance. History has shown us that in Central Asia, after the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tucomans, Kirghis, and Tajiks threw off the Soviet yoke, their first priority was to return to their own languages and traditions. Another historical example is to acknowledge what occurred in the former Yugoslavia after the Soviet power failed. Tribalism, which was suppressed since Europeans drew lines on a map, have merely been suppressed by force throughout the third world and beyond. Freedom can be a very dangerous thing if the proper care is not applied to the situation. But if you think you can get away with painting American troops as murderers and unproffessional criminals in uniform because civilians are killed in the process of combat operations (because no civilians were killed throughout WWII were there?) think again....

Nato forces kill 'up to 85' civilians in Afghan attack. Nato forces in Afghanistan have killed scores of civilians in a single operation, bombing them in their own homes as they celebrated the end of Ramadan. Nato commanders were facing serious questions yesterday as the Afghan government said it had confirmed that at least 40 civilians were killed in Nato bombing raids in Panjwayi district, near Kandahar.Nato forces kill 'up to 85' civilians in Afghan attack - Asia, World - The Independent

NATO has admitted that its forces accidentally killed at least four civilians in eastern Afghanistan, and a local official said foreign troops clashed with Afghan police in the west, killing nine.Omega News Share: NATO kills 4 Afghan civilians

What was that about hearts and minds? In fact, the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan by American and NATO forces this years rivals the civilians killed in Iraq by American forces this year. Maybe some intellectual honesty into what is going on in the world will aid you beyond your feeble attempts to bash America.

 

[Volker]

Obama to demand more from Europe in Berlin speech - swissinfo







And here is Obama already pretending to be president at a campaign stop using my tax dollars.

Pathetic.


BTW did anyone else notice the Jimmy carter cabinet members with Obama's campaign in the ME. :shock:

This is the reason, why many German politicians did not want John Kerry to win in 2004. Dubya is used to hear "no" from Germany, a President from the Democratic Party had just to learn the lesson. It's like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. One can only speculate about how German American relations are going with a President who has more problems with it, it partially depends on how other European governments deal with this issue.

 

[Orion]

GySgt, I have one coveat to add to your statements about NATO. Canada is currently the leader of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and has not been timidly moving forward. Canadian casualties are reported weekly and there is intense fighting going on now. What you're saying implies that NATO only has the ability, if it would quit its whining, to hold the fort until America arrives. What a sad twist of reality.

How long will America, Britain, Canada and other NATO countries remain in Afghanistan? It really doesn't matter because after they have gone the Taliban or someone like them will still be there. They win by simply out waiting the West. This is the lesson of history. America can arrive tomorrow or in 10 years, it won't make a difference. You're dealing with a fractured country made up of tribal sections that are multi-generational in nature.

Of all of Alexander the Great's conquests, Afghanistan was among the hardest and most time consuming. And of all the troops that Alexander left behind to garrison his new domains, an astonishing 95% were left in what is now modern Afghanistan. The British failed to conquer the country in the 1880's just as the Soviets failed 100 years later. Those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it. This is exactly what our leaders are doing today.