The worst US administration ever? Three cheers for George Soros!

[pierom]

I think that considering world terrorism as one enemy to fight on a planetary scale is just a symptom of helpless blindness. The way the Bush administration and his oil gang have handled the Irak affair, as well as the whole attitude of the US administration after 911 bears more likeness with the behaviour of a wounded buffalo, than with the attitude of a responsible world power. I think we are currently whitnessing the doings of the worst US admnistration the world has ever seen and I fully support George Soros' view that all efforts should dedicated to preventing Bush from getting a second term.

Let's quickly review this man's accomplishments so far. In the state where he was governor, 1 out of 4 people is living in poverty, but Texas is a billionaire's paradise. He tried to lower the minimum hourly wage below the minimum federal level. Texas has one of the highest pollution levels in the States. This much to get the flavour of his governor's record. Since he became US president, with his brother's helping hand, he opted for unilateralism in foreign policies. So he decided not to sign the Kyoto environment protocol. He did not endorse the International Court of Justice in the Hague, although he was planning at some time to defer Saddam Hussein before this very court. He unilaterally decided to resume nuclear tests. He chose a less active role in the Middle East. He attacked Afghanistan hoping to get hold of Bin Laden and the Sheik Omar, with the kind of success that we have seen. He then turned on Irak and finally decided to attack without any UNO mandate with the pretense of seeking arms of mass destruction, which he could not find. He succeeded in splitting the Western front and creating a rift in Euro-American relations. He defeated Irak, but failed to capture Saddam Hussein. He mismanaged the subsequent "reconstruction" process, failed to pacify Irak in any foreseeable future, but is now advocating a more active role from the UN, in the hope of handing someone else this hot potato. Some record, uh?

I realise that it is easy to talk with the wisdom of aftersight, but I think that the current US administration is part of the problems the world faces. I don't agree with, but understand those who rate the US as one of the major threats to world peace. I don't think it makes sense to look at terrorism as a single enemy. Terrorism is a terrible weapon, used by a number of political groups, but still a weapon. You don't wage a war against nuclear arms proliferation, but rather work at building global support for banning nuclear arms and at isolating those countries who do not participate. There is not one terrorism. Terrorism is just very popular with some factions because of the incredible dividends it can bring with small investment. Identifying your enemies and placing a wedge between those who accept or use terrorism and those who don't is the only one can sensibly go. Or else risk materialising a self-fulfilling prophecy of a never ending war.

[minusthejihad]

We should change this to "The worst opening post in a thread ever!"

3 things.

1. this doesn't exactly tie into "IsraelForum"
2. You live in Italy, come here, become a citizen, and register to vote, otherwise, enjoy the sidelines.
3. I will vote for Bush, though I voted for Gore last time. Imagine how many other people like me there are.

[pierom]

Originally posted by pierom
I think that considering world terrorism as one enemy to fight on a planetary scale is just a symptom of helpless blindness. The way the Bush administration and his oil gang have handled the Irak affair, as well as the whole attitude of the US administration after 911 bears more likeness with the behaviour of a wounded buffalo, than with the attitude of a responsible world power. I think we are currently whitnessing the doings of the worst US admnistration the world has ever seen and I fully support George Soros' view that all efforts should dedicated to preventing Bush from getting a second term.

Let's quickly review this man's accomplishments so far. In the state where he was governor, 1 out of 4 people is living in poverty, but Texas is a billionaire's paradise. He tried to lower the minimum hourly wage below the minimum federal level. Texas has one of the highest pollution levels in the States. This much to get the flavour of his governor's record. Since he became US president, with his brother's helping hand, he opted for unilateralism in foreign policies. So he decided not to sign the Kyoto environment protocol. He did not endorse the International Court of Justice in the Hague, although he was planning at some time to defer Saddam Hussein before this very court. He unilaterally decided to resume nuclear tests. He chose a less active role in the Middle East. He attacked Afghanistan hoping to get hold of Bin Laden and the Sheik Omar, with the kind of success that we have seen. He then turned on Irak and finally decided to attack without any UNO mandate with the pretense of seeking arms of mass destruction, which he could not find. He succeeded in splitting the Western front and creating a rift in Euro-American relations. He defeated Irak, but failed to capture Saddam Hussein. He mismanaged the subsequent "reconstruction" process, failed to pacify Irak in any foreseeable future, but is now advocating a more active role from the UN, in the hope of handing someone else this hot potato. Some record, uh?

I realise that it is easy to talk with the wisdom of aftersight, but I think that the current US administration is part of the problems the world faces. I don't agree with, but understand those who rate the US as one of the major threats to world peace. I don't think it makes sense to look at terrorism as a single enemy. Terrorism is a terrible weapon, used by a number of political groups, but still a weapon. You don't wage a war against nuclear arms proliferation, but rather work at building global support for banning nuclear arms and at isolating those countries who do not participate. There is not one terrorism. Terrorism is just very popular with some factions because of the incredible dividends it can bring with small investment. Identifying your enemies and placing a wedge between those who accept or use terrorism and those who don't is the only way one can sensibly go. Or else risk materialising a self-fulfilling prophecy of a never ending war.

[danholo]

You know I wasn't for Bush during the last election. Actually I was definitely against him - but he has surprised me. He is the only world leader who has the guts to face todays troubles and one leader who actually does what he promises to do.

I wouldn't have voted for him during the last election (I wasn't old enough either) but I even might vote for him next election if he is not running for a viable candidate who will fight terror and side with Israel.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by danholo
You know I wasn't for Bush during the last election. Actually I was definitely against him - but he has surprised me. He is the only world leader who has the guts to face todays troubles and one leader who actually does what he promises to do.


Same here. GWB has some problems, but who doesn't? So far I don't see anyone else who'd behave more responsibly.
I don't like the following in particular:

. Accomodating position towards the Saudis
. Undecisiveness in the UN. The US pays the lion share for this proud descendant of League of Nations. Counterproductive.
. Arm twisting and double standard applied to Israel.
. Nothing is done to promote alternative energy sources.
. N. Korea, hello!
. And the biggest problem with Bush? Easy: Colin Powell.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Same here. GWB has some problems, but who doesn't? So far I don't see anyone else who'd behave more responsibly.
I don't like the following in particular:

. Accomodating position towards the Saudis
. Undecisiveness in the UN. The US pays the lion share for this proud descendant of League of Nations. Counterproductive.
. Arm twisting and double standard applied to Israel.
. Nothing is done to promote alternative energy sources.
. N. Korea, hello!
. And the biggest problem with Bush? Easy: Colin Powell.

Aye, Humus... Powell and a not so close second... Rice! His Israel double speak gets my onions steamed... the UN is obsolete...
Great point -- alternative energy sources; as I would love to see the Saudis and others trading in their RR's or whatever, for a camel or three. Whether it's a single hump, or bucket seat model!
North Korea - yep! Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia... and the list goes on!

[TDidier]

PieroM for president !

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by TDidier
PieroM for president !

The fine scribblings of a troll hard at work!

[pierom]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
The fine scribblings of a troll hard at work!

And yet I am puzzled (not puzzled really, let's say brought back to a sad reality) in noticing that none of the US residents in this forum seem to give take much heed of the impact on the rest of the world of unilateral views expressed by this administration. Headed by a president who once proudly stated having been abroad just once, in Acapulco. Indeed, a fitting remark for such a world class statesman.

What is good for the US must be good for the rest of the world, and if you don't like it, then you may go and join your terrorist friends!

[alexbmn]

I'm sorry "europe"? what the hell is that?

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by pierom
And yet I am puzzled (not puzzled really, let's say brought back to a sad reality) in noticing that none of the US residents in this forum seem to give take much heed of the impact on the rest of the world of unilateral views expressed by this administration. Headed by a president who once proudly stated having been abroad just once, in Acapulco. Indeed, a fitting remark for such a world class statesman.

What is good for the US must be good for the rest of the world, and if you don't like it, then you may go and join your terrorist friends!

The most powerful nation in human history by multiple orders of magnitude was awakened on 9-11 to the dangers of a WMD Islamic civilization. We utterly destroyed complete nations 60 years ago with weapons 1/100th as powerful as we have today after sustaining “battlefield” losses representing less than 1/10 of what is achievable with just one WMD.

You fools in Europe had better get your act together and reign in all your Islamic hot heads in Europe before they really do touch off WW4 with a WMD attack in the US. I can’t even begin to image the level of abject hatred we will have against not just the Islamic world but all those who stood around and just let it happen. The United States will become in actual practice the very nation you fear the most if this happens. Our “unilateral” actions to date are but a taste of what we could become.

[TheyAre]

I guess you've never heard of James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, LBJ or JFK.

So he decided not to sign the Kyoto environment protocol.

Gee, too bad Putin isn't going to sign it either.

He attacked Afghanistan hoping to get hold of Bin Laden and the Sheik Omar, with the kind of success that we have seen.

And this is a black mark on the Bush Administration somehow? :rolleyes:

He defeated Irak, but failed to capture Saddam Hussein. He mismanaged the subsequent "reconstruction" process, failed to pacify Irak in any foreseeable future, but is now advocating a more active role from the UN, in the hope of handing someone else this hot potato. Some record, uh?

And meanwhile, Iraq rolls on, stabilizing every day, the north and south passable for any part of, say, Italy...

How do you know we've failed to capture Saddam Hussein? A failure implies that no success has been or ever will be reached. How do you know Iraq won't be "pacified" in the foreseeable future? I see Iraq as pacified within a year to 18 months, building a new government from the ground up eliminates all the problems we had with South Vietnam's and South Korea's governments in those two respective wars...

You don't wage a war against nuclear arms proliferation, but rather work at building global support for banning nuclear arms and at isolating those countries who do not participate.

I do believe I'll use this the next time I need to come up with the definition of fascism, K?

[RichardP]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
The most powerful nation in human history by multiple orders of magnitude was awakened on 9-11 to the dangers of a WMD Islamic civilization. We utterly destroyed complete nations 60 years ago with weapons 1/100th as powerful as we have today after sustaining “battlefield” losses representing less than 1/10 of what is achievable with just one WMD.

You fools in Europe had better get your act together and reign in all your Islamic hot heads in Europe before they really do touch off WW4 with a WMD attack in the US. I can’t even begin to image the level of abject hatred we will have against not just the Islamic world but all those who stood around and just let it happen. The United States will become in actual practice the very nation you fear the most if this happens. Our “unilateral” actions to date are but a taste of what we could become.

Well said, however, their selective-memory will come back to haunt them; as it did before!

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by pierom
And yet I am puzzled (not puzzled really, let's say brought back to a sad reality) in noticing that none of the US residents in this forum seem to give take much heed of the impact on the rest of the world of unilateral views expressed by this administration. Headed by a president who once proudly stated having been abroad just once, in Acapulco. Indeed, a fitting remark for such a world class statesman.

What is good for the US must be good for the rest of the world, and if you don't like it, then you may go and join your terrorist friends!

I spent much of my life living in Europe, and know more about european sensibilties than you can ever learn.

The EU leftist media, who you refuse to see as responsible for shaping so much knee-jerk anti-american feelings over there, and drives many low brow "thinkers" like yourself, is an abomination. My experiences there tells me that the majority of EUs that agree with trash like the UK Guardian are already anti-semites and america haters, more out of a lack of self-worth because it was the US that had to come in and save their vaunted european cultural sensibilites in 2 world wars.

Lets put your hypocritical beliefs to a test: I'd bet that as an italian you are quite welcoming to the moroccans, albanians and gypsies flooding Florence, arent you? I'd bet you are fighting real hard for the housing projects being built outside Florence for the Train stop Gyspies right? Leftist EUs have ZERO credibility.

[elke]

I don't like Bush. I don't think he is wise enough to lead the world as it needs to be led.

It is not the unilateralism per se: there are times, when the world is simply wrong! IMO, that is the case now. It's not the general stance of his I personally object to, but his lack of interest in persuading others to follow him, which IMO is caused by his inability to do so.

I do not, however, see an alternative in the Democratic candidates, who would be able to do so either...

[pierom]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
The most powerful nation in human history by multiple orders of magnitude was awakened on 9-11 to the dangers of a WMD Islamic civilization. We utterly destroyed complete nations 60 years ago with weapons 1/100th as powerful as we have today after sustaining “battlefield” losses representing less than 1/10 of what is achievable with just one WMD.

You fools in Europe had better get your act together and reign in all your Islamic hot heads in Europe before they really do touch off WW4 with a WMD attack in the US. I can’t even begin to image the level of abject hatred we will have against not just the Islamic world but all those who stood around and just let it happen. The United States will become in actual practice the very nation you fear the most if this happens. Our “unilateral” actions to date are but a taste of what we could become.

It's probably beyond you to perceive the amount of verbal violence contained in your few sentences. Is power to destroy in your view the new standard of civilization? Then the world's Al Quaeda would be paying you back by the same coin.

However I refuse to identify the US with the bush-ite adventurers. I grew up loving America and I consider these feelings to be part of my chromosomes. Where have all your Roosevelts, your JFKs, your Jewish East Coast liberals, even your Clintons gone? I see America becoming a caricature of itself, but you are right, I still can't get it: I refuse to see this administration's ways as the only (sombre) face of this country, as the only menu the world can choose from. Thank God there are still people (e.g. George Soros for one) who are beginning to realise the kind of mess this administration is leading America (and the world) into.

As Reagan once put it, there are no simple solutions to complicated problems.


Originally posted by TheyAre
Gee, too bad Putin isn't going to sign it either. [the Kyoto agreement]

Well, Russia's decision isn't all made yet. It looks like they are trying to barter their signing it with economic benefits.

However, what's the alternative plan: turn this planet into a garbage bin? Just get as rich as possible now and let future generations take care of themselves?

Originally posted by rhodescholar

Lets put your hypocritical beliefs to a test: I'd bet that as an italian you are quite welcoming to the moroccans, albanians and gypsies flooding Florence, arent you? I'd bet you are fighting real hard for the housing projects being built outside Florence for the Train stop Gyspies right? Leftist EUs have ZERO credibility.
As an Italian I am concerned about the uncontrolled numbers of moroccans, albanians and gypsies coming into the country, which will make it more difficult to integrate them in short time into a "melting pot" just like the US has been doing so far throughout its history and turning them into a resource for the country's future prosperity. But still I am convinced that if you are able to provide these immigrants with housing and the possibility to make a decent living, you are cutting at the roots the grass that terrorism is grazing on.
Bin Laden is an embarassment for any Muslim integrated in our society, but is a Robin Hood to the underdog cleaning your car's windscreen at the traffic light.

And, finally, there's one more point that some of our sheepish bush-ite followers are forgetting here in Europe is that, while all being part of the Western world, we Europeans are here and the Americans are there, so while we remain friends, on the global scale we are also business competitors. The US have perceived this, we often haven't.

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by pierom
It's probably beyond you to perceive the amount of verbal violence contained in your few sentences.

I do in fact understand the pure evil and violence of war in ways you stay at home Europeans while us Americans bleed for civilization will never understand. There is American blood and graves all over Europe liberating you guys from your dangerous political systems. You guys couldn’t even muster an effective force for the most recent crises in the Balkans right in your own backyard.

Originally posted by pierom
Is power to destroy in your view the new standard of civilization?

The importance of a civilization's ability to defend itself effectively is as true today as it was to the Athenians (Persia), Romans (Germany Tribes), British (Blitz) or the United States (Imperialism(WW1),Racist Fascism(WW2), Communism(WW3), Islamism(WW4)).

It is called natural selection and has been in operation for sometime at all levels. Given the rate of abortion amongst Europeans and the Islamic emigration/birth rate Liberal Europe is dying fast.

Originally posted by pierom
Then the world's Al Quaeda would be paying you back by the same coin.

So we deserver it. Just like if we had not cut off all that Oil to Imperial Japan or supplied the British and Russian armies we wouldn’t have gotten Tojo and Hitler so worked up. This is the classic criminals exist because there are police logic so prevalent in Europe. “Now don’t go shooting him, you’ll only make him madder”.

Originally posted by pierom
However I refuse to identify the US with the bush-ite adventurers. I grew up loving America and I consider these feelings to be part of my chromosomes. Where have all your Roosevelts, your JFKs,

Roosevelt’s administration developed the first Nuclear weapon and would have used it just like Truman had he lived. America killed more Japanese civilians in 7 days than the US had Pacific theater combat losses for the whole war.

JFK was only 24 hours from initiating Nuclear World War 3 with the USSR over the Cuban missile crises. Do to random events or divine providence this potential catastrophic War was adverted.

Originally posted by pierom
As Reagan once put it, there are no simple solutions to complicated problems.

Reagan also said a lot of simple minded but correct things like
“Tear down this wall” as his nations answer to the complicated problem of communism. I seem to remember that Reagan was not popular amongst Europeans just like G. Bush is today. Both were right and the Europeans were wrong. Maybe if you guys started doing the exact opposite of what your instinct tells you, you could reverse the decline of your civilization.

President Bush made an Address recently at Whitehall Palace, London, England November 19 that represents a good measure of the American Mind. Please read these and provide comments.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html


As a side note. The only way you will successfully integrate Muslim Arabs into European Culture will be to transform them into Christian or Secular Arabs.

[pierom]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
I do in fact understand the pure evil and violence of war in ways you stay at home Europeans while us Americans bleed for civilization will never understand. There is American blood and graves all over Europe liberating you guys from your dangerous political systems. You guys couldn’t even muster an effective force for the most recent crises in the Balkans right in your own backyard.



I may surprise you by agreeing totally with the last part of your point. We Europeans have so far proven unable to express a single view in foreign politics (something I suspect not entirely unwelcome to the US). The rule of the game after WW2 has always been, you Europeans don't bother to spend large chunks of your national budgets on defense, we Americans will do all the spending, but then you stay quiet and don't complain if we take the lion's share in world affairs, if we keep a fraternal eye on your home politics. We are protecting you, after all. In this bargain - I don't know if there is a direct correlation - we were able to build what I think is so far the best compromise ther world has seen between market economy and socialism: our welfare systems. A system by which, if you are seriously ill, you don't need to be rich to afford expensive medical treatments (maybe we are defying the law of the survival of the fittest?). After all, in my eyes, the ultimate success of an economic system is not measured by the number of millionaires it creates, but by the number of individuals it can provide with a decent living.

Now we are seeing 2 phenomenons: on the one hand our welfare systems are under pressure to reduce their costs, who are making us less competitive; on the other hand, we are beginning to see the need for a common defense. There had been a timid attempt at a European Defense Community, whose failure was France's responsibility. Now we have the Euro, after so many years, finally in place. I don't know if all this is going to last, but if it does and if a common European defense force is going to be created, then maybe we will begin to open our eyes to our responsibilities. But, as I said, you have a point so far.


Originally posted by SteveMetch
The importance of a civilization's ability to defend itself effectively is as true today as it was to the Athenians (Persia), Romans (Germany Tribes), British (Blitz) or the United States (Imperialism(WW1),Racist Fascism(WW2), Communism(WW3), Islamism(WW4)).

It is called natural selection and has been in operation for sometime at all levels. Given the rate of abortion amongst Europeans and the Islamic emigration/birth rate Liberal Europe is dying fast.



Again I must agree. The big question in our history is whether we will behave as the Greek cities did, deciding to get together and defend themselves, when Alexander the Great had by then become too powerful to be defeated anyway.
But, in today's perspective, I see for us Europeans more chances of making it if we attract Russia into our orbit than if we acritically follow the US.

Originally posted by SteveMetch


President Bush made an Address recently at Whitehall Palace...



Thanks for providing me with this link. Along with many principles I agree with, I find a good measure of rhetoric and a lot of Gott mit uns (the Lord with us). I don't think that this kind of preaching pays much respect to the cultures in the rest of the world. Another Roosevelt's expression I am very fond of is: talk softly but carry a big stick. So talk you must, if you hope to persuade. This administration has showed very poor attitude to persuading, at least with us Europeans. But maybe this was not his primary goal and he was happy with the idea of breaking us apart [see my previous remarks about Euro-American competition]


Originally posted by SteveMetch


As a side note. The only way you will successfully integrate Muslim Arabs into European Culture will be to transform them into Christian or Secular Arabs.

That's fine for me.

[SteveMetch]

I think the Europeans have so thoroughly vented their desire for war that they will never form an effective fighting force. If all nations were more like Europe there would be no more need for the military. America will naturally disarm absent a threat. On December 6, 1941 we had one of the smallest least modern armies in the world, by 1945 the worlds most destructive.

There are two things most important to understand about the American culture. One is that we have a strong isolationist viewpoint; we reluctantly assume the role of world policemen only because we believe it ironically serves our desire to be left alone. The second is that we are Mankind’s first nation based upon the Idea of Liberty, rather than race like other nations. This is a very inclusive approach to citizenship not unlike the Christianity philosophy of Father and Brothers, from which it sprang.

I find it very enlightening that in Islam it is Master and Slave. This is a very different viewpoint than the God of Christianity. The Allah of Islam is not compatible or the same as the God of Christianity. The Allah of Islam is very compatible with the Satan of Christianity though who hates mankind and wants us subjugated to him just like in the Master/Slave relationship.

If the Judeo/Christian God is the one and only true God there is no doubt the Allah of Islam is in fact the Devil.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
I think the Europeans have so thoroughly vented their desire for war that they will never form an effective fighting force. If all nations were more like Europe there would be no more need for the military. America will naturally disarm absent a threat. On December 6, 1941 we had one of the smallest least modern armies in the world, by 1945 the worlds most destructive.

There are two things most important to understand about the American culture. One is that we have a strong isolationist viewpoint; we reluctantly assume the role of world policemen only because we believe it ironically serves our desire to be left alone. The second is that we are Mankind’s first nation based upon the Idea of Liberty, rather than race like other nations. This is a very inclusive approach to citizenship not unlike the Christianity philosophy of Father and Brothers, from which it sprang.

I find it very enlightening that in Islam it is Master and Slave. This is a very different viewpoint than the God of Christianity. The Allah of Islam is not compatible or the same as the God of Christianity. The Allah of Islam is very compatible with the Satan of Christianity though who hates mankind and wants us subjugated to him just like in the Master/Slave relationship.

If the Judeo/Christian God is the one and only true God there is no doubt the Allah of Islam is in fact the Devil.

Well stated, Steve, though it will p*ss off a few of the trolls... which is a good thing!

[pierom]

Originally posted by SteveMetch

we are Mankind’s first nation based upon the Idea of Liberty, rather than race like other nations. This is a very inclusive approach to citizenship not unlike the Christianity philosophy of Father and Brothers, from which it sprang.


I have always held in great admiration the idea of Liberty, the way the US apply it to their citizens. When it comes to tracing its roots, I would not forget the Roman republic, with its proud notion of citizenship (civis Romanus sum - I am a Roman citizen), nor, even more evidently, the British tradition. However this American respect for liberty has in many cases coexisted with a very pragmatic attitude when liberty of other countries was concerned (business is business). The US support for the bloody overthrowing of a democratic government in Chile, which was later openly admitted by former CIA officials, has always puzzled me as an example of double standards.

With respect, I find your view, or GW Bush's view, of the American mission as smackìng too much of Manicheism, of struggle between Good and Evil, to my skeptical, Old World, taste.

I was never a great believer of Reagan's definition of the USSR as the Empire of Evil. In fact I am persuaded that Communism fulfilled a role as a counterweight to the capitalistic extremities, as a kind of imperfectly alternative menu.
Now i.m.o. part of the problem with the Islamic world is that it has stepped in as the only alternative model to the Unified Thought. The problem with the US being the only Superpower left, is on the other hand the lack of competition. And competition will always be the best safeguard for a human society.

[minusthejihad]

I, as one of the many refugees who left the Former Soviet Union due to discrimination, fear, hatred, etc. on this forum, will say that the FSU was an evil empire and Russia today is no better.

[Mil]

Posted by Pierom:


We Europeans have so far proven unable to express a single view in foreign politics (something I suspect not entirely unwelcome to the US). The rule of the game after WW2 has always been, you Europeans don't bother to spend large chunks of your national budgets on defense, we Americans will do all the spending, but then you stay quiet and don't complain if we take the lion's share in world affairs, if we keep a fraternal eye on your home politics.


Actually the reality is exactly the opposite. "We the poor Europeans have messed up twice, our colonies are falling apart, please help!!!!" Post WWII Western Europe was much more interested in American involvement then the other way around. The last time any European countries took an independent foreign policy initiative was during the Sinai Crisis at the conclusion of which they were burried by both the Soviets and the Americans.



We are protecting you, after all.


Really? How?


In this bargain - I don't know if there is a direct correlation - we were able to build what I think is so far the best compromise ther world has seen between market economy and socialism: our welfare systems.


REally?


A system by which, if you are seriously ill, you don't need to be rich to afford expensive medical treatments (maybe we are defying the law of the survival of the fittest?). After all, in my eyes, the ultimate success of an economic system is not measured by the number of millionaires it creates, but by the number of individuals it can provide with a decent living.


With the ever-rising medical costs, increases in the standard of living and retirees I can see your medical welfare in big-big trouble.


Now we are seeing 2 phenomenons: on the one hand our welfare systems are under pressure to reduce their costs, who are making us less competitive; on the other hand, we are beginning to see the need for a common defense.


I see the logical correlation!!! Defense - welfare system. Or is it the other way around?


There had been a timid attempt at a European Defense Community, whose failure was France's responsibility. Now we have the Euro, after so many years, finally in place. I don't know if all this is going to last, but if it does and if a common European defense force is going to be created, then maybe we will begin to open our eyes to our responsibilities. But, as I said, you have a point so far.


European common cause is a joke. Why re-invent the wheel? NATO is already there. Creating a brand new agency to copy an existing one is a complete waste of resources. I am not saying it as a proud of American but as a practical person.

[Mil]

Posted by Pierom:


The US support for the bloody overthrowing of a democratic government in Chile,


It was basically done to prevent another Castro.


which was later openly admitted by former CIA officials, has always puzzled me as an example of double standards.


I can give you a tons of history concerning European worldly plans including WWI, WWII and etc... that have caused grief to Europe, the world, and my family personally. Are you ready to answer my family being an Italian?


With respect, I find your view, or GW Bush's view, of the American mission as smackìng too much of Manicheism, of struggle between Good and Evil, to my skeptical, Old World, taste.


"Democracy Across the Middle East" - I find it to be a very good formula.


I was never a great believer of Reagan's definition of the USSR as the Empire of Evil.


Meaning that you never lived in USSR. I did.


In fact I am persuaded that Communism fulfilled a role as a counterweight to the capitalistic extremities, as a kind of imperfectly alternative menu.


Lets make Italy a communist state just to create that counter-weight. Or lets say Germany.


Now i.m.o. part of the problem with the Islamic world is that it has stepped in as the only alternative model to the Unified Thought.


The problem with the Arab world is that it's socially un-progressive, economically decaying, culturally decrepit, and politically stagnant. It's ruled by dictators, monarchs, and theocracies - nothing that promotes any kind political secularilism, cultural liberalism and economical flexibility. The populations are generally poor, uneducated and are very seceptible to any clearly thinking ideological charlatan (ex. OBL) of every sort - including religious and political.


In 1989 the Iraqi GDP with all the oil and over 15 mil population was twice less then Israeli 50 billion with 3.5 million population and no oil. Make your assumptions.



The problem with the US being the only Superpower left, is on the other hand the lack of competition. And competition will always be the best safeguard for a human society.


You are talking about the US as if its an enemy of some sorts. US is the mildest super-power on this Earth. I can start going into what you Europeans did to this world and in comparison of the blood and brutality nothing comes even close.

[Mediocrates]

Israel's total economy is about 122 billion, ($US equiv) - I think that's the point you were making. Source; CIA Factbook.


Iran is about 456 billion USD
Saudi Arabia is about 242 billion USD

[Alfred]

Originally posted by pierom

I grew up loving America and I consider these feelings to be part of my chromosomes.


Pierom:

Don't give up on America. You must understand that we are in the most dangerous war we have EVER been in. While the Soviet Union and the US could have destroyed the world several times over with their nukes, both the Soviets and the Americans were rational beings.

The enemy we are fighting is not a rational enemy nor is it a nationstate. It is a shadowy figure that kills innocents as a matter of primary tactic. It is an enemy that often wants to die in the process.

The major difference today is that our new enemy could sneak a nuke into our country without too much difficulty. Who would we nuke to retaliate? If an unknown freighter blew up in a 20 megaton explosion in the middle of New York harbor, and there was no claim of responsibility; what US President would start nuking random Arab cities? No one would. Therefore we have ZERO deterrent. This is a new world.

That is why American is so adament about "you are with us or against us." We cannot take a chance. Our survival is at stake.

As long as Bush is in power we will kill the enemy as best we can. Just as the Japanese in the final months of WW2, there was no thought of surrender. It was a fight to the death. Either we die or they die. As bad as America has become in your mind, I would hope you would agree it would be better to have an America than not.

America is a great country because of its philosophies, its freedom, its charity, and because it has little desire for world conquest. What we do now is for the reasons stated above. It is up to you to understand the difference between what we are doing today and world conquest. This is why we are so dissapointed in the Europeans. You would think that they could understand the difference.

[pierom]

Originally posted by Alfred
Pierom:

Don't give up on America.



I sure don't: in fact I'm conforted by the fact that I share the same views with some 50% of the American electorate.


The major difference today is that our new enemy could sneak a nuke into our country without too much difficulty. Who would we nuke to retaliate? If an unknown freighter blew up in a 20 megaton explosion in the middle of New York harbor, and there was no claim of responsibility; what US President would start nuking random Arab cities? No one would. Therefore we have ZERO deterrent. This is a new world.



I have always been in favour of the Space Shield or whatever they called Reagan's plan for an advanced antinuke defense: if anything, it would "restrict the club" of those holding the power of causing massive destruction and therefore reduce the chances of a madman being able to blackmail the planet with a nuclear bomb. This to prove that I am not soft on terrorism.
But there has to be a clear plan and I still don't see one in this administration's acts.

However, it looks like we share the same concern. It's on the response that we diverge.


That is why American is so adament about "you are with us or against us."


BTW, which side would you place Saudi Arabia?

[pierom]

So good that this site still keeps 8 years old posts. Personally, being still alive to date, I may well take get the credit, with hindsight, for having anticipated a judgement that few historians are likely to dispute. And, to give honor where it's due, there is little doubt hat GW Bush will go down in history in the top tier of the worst US presidents league. Too bad for the rest of the world, who is certainly less rich, less secure, less protected, than it was 8 years ago, in spite of the fact that a few tycoons may have made it to the top in the meantime.

:clap:

[Mil]

So good that this site still keeps 8 years old posts. Personally, being still alive to date, I may well take get the credit, with hindsight, for having anticipated a judgement that few historians are likely to dispute. And, to give honor where it's due, there is little doubt hat GW Bush will go down in history in the top tier of the worst US presidents league.

:) You mean Italian historians?


Too bad for the rest of the world, who is certainly less rich, less secure, less protected, than it was 8 years ago, in spite of the fact that a few tycoons may have made it to the top in the meantime.

don't blame us for your problems. I heard of some horrible racial problems in Italy....

[pierom]

I'm sorry to disappoint you in not joining in in a finger-pointing fray involving Italian-American relations. The point I am more interested in is the failure of an economic model based on a liberistic ideology, whereby the market, once set free, will successfully regulate itself. Therefore let there be no limitations, no solidarity for the weaker citizens, no regulations, no limits to pollution, no concerns for the environment. So that the rich may become richer and the poor poorer. Unfortunately this system has one major flaw: when the rich get richer, they tend not to show the same propensity to pour back their income into the market circle as the middle classes, but rather tend to be more attracted by financial speculation, causing the system at a certain point to collapse. This has happened in 1929 and seems to be happening once again right now.

There are striking similarities between the then president Hoover and GW Bush. Hoover was followed by Roosevelt, whose merits few historians (Italian or not) dispute. I wish this parallel would apply to Barack Obama. He sure will have a lot to do cleaning up the rubble left by GW.