Europeans Like Bush Even Less Than Before

[JackSpratts]

Nick Clegg, a British Liberal Democrat who is a member of the European Parliament, said it was "difficult to exaggerate" the European hope that President Bush would lose the election.

Writing in Nyezavisimaya Gazeta, Mr. Yanov said, "In contrast to Bush, [Kerry] will never put the Bolshevik principle - 'Those who are not with us are against us' - at the center of his policy."

"People say, 'I'm very frustrated that I can't vote in the U.S. elections, because these are the ones that affect my way of life more than anything else,' " Ken Dubin, a political scientist at Carlos III University in Madrid, said in an interview.

"The thing that Europeans cannot understand is how you can vote for a liar," said Peter Schneider, a German essayist and novelist. "Here is somebody who lies about something that leads to a war where tens of thousands of people's lives are involved."




LONDON, May 8 - Earlier this year, George Osborne, a Conservative member of Parliament, took a straw poll of some legislators from his party. The subject was President Bush. The results were not pretty.

"George Bush scares the hell out of me," one Tory said, according to an article by Mr. Osborne in The Spectator. Another told him: "Bush is a man who might wail at the moon. I don't feel comfortable with him." A third said that while he would vote for Bush in November if he could, "I think Anglo-American relations would be better if Kerry won."

That was long before pictures showing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners were published all over the world, horrifying even Mr. Bush's allies. And the people Mr. Osborne polled were all Conservatives, by tradition and temperament the Republican Party's natural friends across the Atlantic.

But perhaps the only surprising thing about the vehemence of anti-Bush feeling, based on a reading of newspapers, opinion polls and interviews around Europe, is how unsurprising it truly is. In fact, one reason the recent disclosures have proved so damaging to the American cause here is that Mr. Bush had so little good will upon which to draw.

Across Europe, anti-Bush feeling has contributed to a consensus that the coming American election is of singular importance: for the United States, certainly, but also for the rest of the world. Anxieties about the direction America is going are accompanied more often than not by a passionate desire, cutting across national borders and party lines, to see President Bush voted out of office in November.

Europeans are in general more liberal than Americans, and among Europe's mainstream liberals, rejecting Mr. Bush is a matter of course. But a strange thing seems to have happened to many conservatives, who would ordinarily be the American president's cheerleaders. Even those who favor him seem loath to admit to wholehearted support, tempering their praise with caveats and qualifications.

It is as if admiring Mr. Bush is seen as slightly shameful among thinking Europeans, like confessing a preference for screw-top wine bottles.

"I must say, he's not very popular," said Sergio Romano, an Italian teacher and commentator who has served as ambassador to NATO and to the former Soviet Union. "It's quite understandable that he wouldn't be popular with the bulk of the center-left European intelligentsia, but he's not very popular with the conservatives or moderates either."

In Britain, Lawrence Freedman, a professor of war studies and the vice principal for research at King's College London, paused for an awkward moment when asked about an article he had written for The Financial Times arguing that Mr. Bush seemed "the safer bet," based on past experiences with second-term United States presidents.

"I wouldn't want to come across as a supporter of President Bush," Mr. Freedman said. "It was more of not being pro-Bush, but of explaining why Europeans, despite appearances, might end up not being unhappy if Bush was elected."

In poll after poll, Europeans have shown themselves to be fervently anti-Bush. In Britain, America's staunchest ally in the war in Iraq, a poll of 1,007 people taken last month for The Times of London by the British polling company Populus found support for Senator John Kerry over President Bush by a margin of 56 to 22 percent.

From America, a poll of people in nine nations conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March found that opinion of the president and, by extension, the United States, had plummeted across Europe since Mr. Bush took office.

In France, the poll found, the president had an 85 percent negative rating; in Britain, 57 percent; in Germany 85 percent; and in Russia, 60 percent.

"People say, 'I'm very frustrated that I can't vote in the U.S. elections, because these are the ones that affect my way of life more than anything else,' " Ken Dubin, a political scientist at Carlos III University in Madrid, said in an interview.

Referring to the prewar meeting last year of President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and José María Aznar, who was then the prime minister of Spain and whose recent election loss was attributed to antiwar feelings by Spanish voters, Mr. Dubin said, "I've heard the comment, 'One down, two to go.' "

In an editorial in March, the left-leaning British newspaper The Guardian put it more starkly. "Senator Kerry carries the hopes not just of millions of Americans but of millions of British well-wishers, not to mention those of nations throughout Europe and the world," the newspaper wrote. "Nothing in world politics would make more difference to the rest of us than a change in the White House."

Of course there are Bush supporters here. Mr. Osborne is one: "I think he's been a good president for the U.S. and for Britain, and I'd like to see him re-elected," Mr. Osborne said in an interview.

So are leaders like Mr. Blair and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy. Many European thinkers, while acknowledging the depth of anti-Bush feeling, say it is simplistic and unfair.

"I was impressed by Bush's reaction to Sept. 11, and how he helped put the country back on its feet," said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, an international lawyer and political writer in France, and the author of "An Alliance At Risk: The United States and Europe Since Sept. 11."

"Europeans tend to attribute the rift between the U.S. and Europe essentially to one man and one administration, and to believe that the mere election of a different president would mend the relationship quickly," he added. "Unfortunately, the reasons for the current Atlantic divide are deeper and more complex."

Some countries, like Poland, which has committed troops to the war in Iraq, have their own reasons for wanting Mr. Bush to succeed.

"Given that the Polish fate in Iraq is linked with President Bush and his policies, there are more sympathies on the Bush side," said Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a former European affairs minister who is running for the European Parliament. "We think he's been a decisive and courageous president."

But on the whole it is hard to find unreserved enthusiasm for Mr. Bush in Europe. Not that Senator Kerry is seen as particularly dynamic or gifted, or even as especially likely to solve all of America's foreign-policy problems. But he has one irresistible attraction: his non-Bushness.

Europeans' objections to Mr. Bush are multifaceted. Some are still obsessing about stolen elections and hanging chads. Others cannot get past the president's plain-spoken manner, his proudly aggressive anti-intellectualism, his ties to the religious right and his tendency in public to trip over words and concepts.

The criticism can be expressed in ways that are exceptionally disparaging of an American president.

The Express, a British tabloid, for instance, ridiculed Mr. Bush's news conference last month in an article titled, "The President's Brain Is Missing," saying his performance had revealed him as a "bumbling embarrassment."

The paper printed a series of unflattering photographs showing Mr. Bush's various facial expressions after a reporter asked whether he had made mistakes since the Sept. 11 attacks. "In what was meant to be a rallying defense of the war," the caption read, "George Bush appears alternately flummoxed, panicked, forgetful and distant as he struggles to remember what he's been doing in Iraq for the past year."

But beyond distaste for Mr. Bush's personal style are serious questions about what Europeans see as his American-centric, us-or-them worldview.

These began soon after Mr. Bush took office, when he diverged from the European position on a host of international treaties. Then came Sept. 11, the conflict with Iraq, the subsequent backpedaling about the rationale for entering the war and, now, the prisoner abuse scandal.

"The thing that Europeans cannot understand is how you can vote for a liar," said Peter Schneider, a German essayist and novelist. "Here is somebody who lies about something that leads to a war where tens of thousands of people's lives are involved."

Nor are Europeans thrilled about the American values they feel Mr. Bush has encouraged, in which anti-Europeanism is applauded as a virtue, people boycott French wine in protest at the French position on Iraq and Senator Kerry is ridiculed by the Republicans for being able to speak French.

"The idea that you have a leader of the U.S. who's not interested in listening to his allies is important in the way people perceive Bush," Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States at the French Institute of Foreign Relations, said in an interview. "He has a very simplistic view of the world, which we find difficult to accept. In fact, that we find dangerous."

In Moscow, the political commentator Aleksandr Yanov said Mr. Kerry was a superior candidate for many reasons, high among them that he appears to have a far more nuanced view of the world.

Writing in Nyezavisimaya Gazeta, Mr. Yanov said, "In contrast to Bush, he will never put the Bolshevik principle - 'Those who are not with us are against us' - at the center of his policy."

Nick Clegg, a British Liberal Democrat who is a member of the European Parliament, said it was "difficult to exaggerate" the European hope that President Bush would lose the election - particularly in Brussels, whose multilateral ethos is mightily offended by Mr. Bush's unilateralism.

"At the moment, a consideration or analysis of Kerry's positions is pretty underdeveloped," Mr. Clegg said in an interview. "Partly, it's because it's still early days and he hasn't revealed his hand fully. But what really drives people is alarm about George Bush's policies, more than some overwhelming attraction to Kerry.

"Kerry's greatest attraction is that he's not George Bush."

Sarah Lyall

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/in...pe/09euro.html

[Mazer]

It's easy for europeans to vote in our elections, they just have to move to the USA and become citizens. They don't even have to live here for the rest of their lives, just a decade or so. Come one, come all, become an American and live the dream of voting against an incumbent president. You too can make a very small difference; like Archimedes once said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world [about one billionth of an inch]."

I'd feel more comfortable if they didn't feel the need to steal my vote in this election. This is our business and if the rest of the world hates us for electing Bush, tough. My vote may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it's mine and I earned it.

[Nicobie]

You think that won't help him in the polls?

Hahahahaha

Have any of U Euros ever thought that maybe the average man on the street in the US doesn't really care about, or trust people from overseas?

The general consensus is (I think), So what have they ever done for us. And why should we care about them when it's obvious they hate us anyway?

I know we are called 'ugly Americans', but that doesn't mean we are stupid.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Have any of U Americans ever thought that maybe the average Euro realizes the average man on the street in the US doesn't really care about, or trust people from overseas, and that's why they assume we are talking out our asses whenever we we claim we are doing things for "the common good"--or for the gain of anyone but ourselves?

You've made an excellent point Nicobie, and you probably don't need to dig much deeper to see why most of Europe decided to decline in helping us out in Iraq.

[Mazer]

Presidential elections have a whole lot to do with domestic issues, issues Europeans know little about and have no right to influence. Their concerns about foreign policy are duly noted, and they can be addressed at the UN and through our ambassadors. But when it comes to domestic policy we have to think about ourselves.

[Nicobie]

Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone

... and you probably don't need to dig much deeper to see why most of Europe decided to decline in helping us out in Iraq.

Weren't they the clever ones...

If the world would have acted in unison about the creep who ran Iraq, this wouldn't have happened.

I place the full blame on wishie washie Europe as usual.

I mean, not once will they back America? They are just HOPING for failure.

Fuc'm. It is the wave of the future anyway. America has big oceans. Europe has screwed each and all their neighbors over since day one. It's time for the USA to abandon those back-biting dillweeds.

I say, they can eat shit if they won't help us. Isn't that what they are telling us now?



I'm sorry, this was so long. I should have been able to express my opinion using less bandwidth. [butt i got mad]

[Ramona_A_Stone]

If the world would have acted in unison about the creep who ran Iraq, this wouldn't have happened.

Try listening to yourself once in a while.

When you do finally figure out who the main obstacle to the world acting in unison was, know that you are free to vote for his opponent in November.

[Mazer]

Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
When you do finally figure out who the main obstacle to the world acting in unison was, know that you are free to vote for his opponent in November.

As I recall the world was not opposed to military intervention in Iraq until Colon Powell asked the UN for its endorsment. That's when the security council decided that just for the hell of it they were gonna be uncompliant. It didn't even matter that Saddam lacked WMD's because everyone who read the reports believed that he did. We only asked the UN as a courtesy, and the only obstacles to the world acting in unison were France and Russia. They didn't veto the inspection resolution because they had evidence to contradict our evidence, they just did it to fuck with us. For me it doesn't matter if they're trustworthy or not, it matters that they are disloyal. It matters that European politicians only defy us to curry the favor of their constituents. I can understand how the world's only superpower needs Europe to be the yin to its yang, but really that obligates Europe's leaders to do what they think is right rather than what they think is politically advantageous. Their opposition to the current administration is asinine retoric and it accomplishes nothing.

[Nicobie]

RAS,

Do you think that the deals France, Germany & Russia made with the jerkieboi in Iraq might have had something to do with giving the US the finger about the invasion?

It's starting to be talked about, and the UN doesn't come off to good.

[tambourine-man]

Originally posted by Mazer
...We only asked the UN as a courtesy...

Yes... that's why the US is disliked in Europe.

...European politicians only defy us to curry the favor of their constituents...

True - sort of. You're getting close to the big picture...

I can understand how the world's only superpower needs Europe to be the yin to its yang...

Nice analogy. A little simplistic though... uh oh... I think I know where you're going with this...

...but really that obligates Europe's leaders to do what they think is right rather than what they think is politically advantageous.

Oh dear. You were doing so well up until that point. Your Yin-Yang idea was great... but then you had to spoil it by suggesting that the onus is upon Europe's leaders to 'do what's right' - rather than 'politically advantageous', abdicating US politicians of such onus. This is hypocritical in the extreme, largely as it espouses the idea that attacking Iraq was 'right' and was without political advantages (and motivations), in the first place! Contrary to popular belief, traditional concepts view Yin and Yang not as polar opposites. There is not simply light and dark, good and bad, purity and corruption... Nor are they mutually exclusive within a single country or administration!

For your 'strict' Yin and Yang to exist, there must be simplistic notions of good and bad - on an international political level... and we know who'll be the good guy... and who'll be the baddie, right? THIS is why Bush is unpopular in Europe (if you're interested), because of his administration's two-tone belief system and a willingness to push it onto his populus. It saddens me that an intelligent person such as yourself, Mazer, would speak using the same simplistic concepts as Bush - the only difference being, that you perform the verbal dance with a greater elegance.

Don't make the mistake of assuming it's merely bad/old/insert adjective here-Europe holding you back. Sometimes, a mirror can allow you to see further than a telescope.

[Mazer]

Originally posted by tambourine-man
Contrary to popular belief, traditional concepts view Yin and Yang not as polar opposites. There is not simply light and dark, good and bad, purity and corruption... Nor are they mutually exclusive within a single country or administration!

This is actually the point I was trying to make, that they shouldn't oppose us just for the sake of opposing us. Yin and Yang is a fluid concept as you well know, and I chose Yang for the US because it's quick to anger, but elements of both sides exist in everything. I only used it as an analogy but we'll take a closer look.

Yin/Yang does not equal good/bad in any way, the two are morally neutral. Though Bush doesn't understand this I do so I know that Europe's opposition is necessary at times. I supported the invasion for ethical reasons, I saw Saddam as a threat and his removal was for the greater good. Bush et al probably invaded Iraq for political reasons, they used Saddam as a scapegoat. Europe, realizing that Bush was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, decided he needed to be set straight. Then they proceeded to make the same mistake by using Bush as their scapegoat for political gain, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. As Yin and Yang, Europe and the US would inevitably try to maintain an equal balance of power thereby minimizing the dammage that one world power left alone would cause. But I think both sides have caused harm and our responsibility to help each other is not being fulfilled.

Though they couldn't stop us from going to war Europe should try harder to get us to finish what we've started. Likewise we should try harder to get Europe involved in anti-terrorism since it affects us both. Is any of this going to get accomplished when politicians, both American and European, care only about their elections? The world could use a little more cooperation and I wouldn't count on the US to fix everything.

[pisser]

What the Europeans are really saying is that they don't like Bush because he doesn't kiss their asses like Clinton did.

Good! Fuck Europe to hell!

[miss_silver]

Originally posted by pisser
What the Europeans are really saying is that they don't like Bush because he doesn't kiss their asses like Clinton did.

Good! Fuck Europe to hell!

Hello pisser

Don't usually reply to your post in the PA but on this i'll make an exeption

Fuck europe? yes, why not! Since they obviously know about all the OGM harm and that "Oh god forbid" they are mostly lefties according to your oil ass licking prez. Guess a lot of ppl have to wake up and smell the virtual java coffe beans and brew themselves a cup of "reality"!

This might be a wake up call to you but you are not the only country in the world! Some other foreign nation are intitled to their own decision including, not to participate on this now called "War of all horrors" instead of "Was on terriorisim". Keep wondering why Canada is still not blamed After all, we refused to join your war effort. Trust me on this, it's easier to blame another country from which you are divided by an ocean than a country which border your country. Just a question, did Mexico join the war on terrorisim, did any central american or south american country joined in this war? If so, please correct me on this.

Just to say, it's easier to blame some other country than admitting that the war on Iraq is a total screwup, coming from your own gouverning forces! If you feel so guilty about what your own gov did, Blame him instead of Europeans. Just a thought, ain't the UK part of europe? (my apologie to Petri, TM & Malvachat & Ranger)

This war on Iraq is wrong on so many levels now, after witnessing the murder of those 4 unfortunate contractors, the falluja seige... Guess your gov would have a clue by now that the US coalition forces are not wanted in iraq.

Beyond that, peace pisser

Just hope skynet won't take over b4 this war is over or else we would mostly all be dead!

[tambourine-man]

Originally posted by Mazer
[b]This is actually the point I was trying to make, that they shouldn't oppose us just for the sake of opposing us. Yin and Yang is a fluid concept as you well know, and I chose Yang for the US because it's quick to anger, but elements of both sides exist in everything. I only used it as an analogy but we'll take a closer look.[b]

I supported the invasion for ethical reasons, I saw Saddam as a threat and his removal was for the greater good. Bush et al probably invaded Iraq for political reasons, they used Saddam as a scapegoat. Europe, realizing that Bush was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, decided he needed to be set straight. Then they proceeded to make the same mistake by using Bush as their scapegoat for political gain, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Here's the problem, if Bush did invade for political gain, then his ethical claim is nullified. Considering the lack of WMD and the failure to materialise anything that could've brought about the doom-and-gloom prophesies we were subjected to, I'd say that Bush was on shaky ethical territory. In which case, it's difficult to site Bush as 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons'. Actually... hang on... we're getting into a circular argument here. We're gonna end up arguing about justifications for war/administration lies... and that'll get us nowhere - especially as I respect the fact that you clearly have a thought-out, developed opinion... just not one that I agree with! Really, your point (and the OP) is one of the relationship between the US and Europe...

As Yin and Yang, Europe and the US would inevitably try to maintain an equal balance of power thereby minimizing the dammage that one world power left alone would cause. But I think both sides have caused harm and our responsibility to help each other is not being fulfilled.

In essence, yes... but... let's be frank. Helping eachother is about as likely as a polititian caring about anything other than re-election or helping his neighbour. Secondly, in terms of realpolitik, France, Germany and Russia are pissed off that the US has militarily waded into an oil-rich region that they had managed to negotiate with for decades. In other words, they chose to miss the gravy-train-to-oil-city, thinking that they could prevent it from ever leaving the platform. With European integration increasing, (notwithstanding the historical factors), I see US co-operation as a pipe-dream. Shame really.

Though they couldn't stop us from going to war Europe should try harder to get us to finish what we've started. Likewise we should try harder to get Europe involved in anti-terrorism since it affects us both.

Again, Europe will fight both of these aims as the major players view the US as it's antagonist. Basically the Franco-German attitude on this is: "Got a problem in Iraq? Tough. We told you not to go". Moreover, there is an undercurrent of feeling (and this stretches back years) that the US has contributed to the rise of terrorism and that it was merely a matter of time before the worm turned. Sadly this critique and opposition to US policy is all-to-often distilled, bottled and labelled 'Anti-Americanism', when the truth is actually far more complex.

Is any of this going to get accomplished when politicians, both American and European, care only about their elections? The world could use a little more cooperation and I wouldn't count on the US to fix everything.

Herein lies the solution. 'Fixing things' was never the intention of the US. It's intentions were purely political and monetary. That aside, the answer to your question is obviously a resounding 'no'. But I would argue that as things stand, co-operation is about as likely as finding a fart in a jacuzzi.

[multi]

co-operation is about as likely as finding a fart in a jacuzzi.

you might not find it ,but you know it was there from the stench..

[pisser]

Originally posted by miss_silver
Hello pisser

Don't usually reply to your post in the PA but on this i'll make an exeption

Fuck europe? yes, why not! Since they obviously know about all the OGM harm and that "Oh god forbid" they are mostly lefties according to your oil ass licking prez. Guess a lot of ppl have to wake up and smell the virtual java coffe beans and brew themselves a cup of "reality"!

This might be a wake up call to you but you are not the only country in the world! Some other foreign nation are intitled to their own decision including, not to participate on this now called "War of all horrors" instead of "Was on terriorisim". Keep wondering why Canada is still not blamed After all, we refused to join your war effort. Trust me on this, it's easier to blame another country from which you are divided by an ocean than a country which border your country. Just a question, did Mexico join the war on terrorisim, did any central american or south american country joined in this war? If so, please correct me on this.

Just to say, it's easier to blame some other country than admitting that the war on Iraq is a total screwup, coming from your own gouverning forces! If you feel so guilty about what your own gov did, Blame him instead of Europeans. Just a thought, ain't the UK part of europe? (my apologie to Petri, TM & Malvachat & Ranger)

This war on Iraq is wrong on so many levels now, after witnessing the murder of those 4 unfortunate contractors, the falluja seige... Guess your gov would have a clue by now that the US coalition forces are not wanted in iraq.

Beyond that, peace pisser

Just hope skynet won't take over b4 this war is over or else we would mostly all be dead!

Well, that's fine...you are of course entitled to your opinion....I know that we are not the only country in the world, but we are the most POWERFUL country in the world...don't forget it.

Finally, we have a government that is willing to stand up and take the heat for the principles that it believes in. If you thought we were just going to sit back and take it...you and the rest of you yellow bellied liberals are so sadly mistaken. I for one wouldn't mind just wipeing out all arabs, for they are the source of the worlds problems, poor demented souls.

If you didn't like the idea of us going to war, why didn't YOUR government do something about it. I'll tell you why, because we have canada in our back pocket and it will always be like that.

Bye bye canuck-e


P.S. San Jose is going to kick Calgary's assssssses! hehe

[miss_silver]

Originally posted by pisser
Well, that's fine...you are of course entitled to your opinion....I know that we are not the only country in the world, but we are the most POWERFUL country in the world...don't forget it.

Powerful? beside being powerfully armed with WMD and powerfully in debt, I don't see much power. In fact, you are the most broke country in the world! You have no money. Ever since the 1929 crash, you have no money. Do me a favor, get yourself a nice 1$ bill and read what's on it.

It says "Federal Reserve Note" and ''This note is legal tender forALL DEBTS, public and private '' Now what the fuck does that mean? It means that if you have a 100$ bill in your pocket, you are not 100$ richer, your Country is 100$ in debt. It's a fucking misconception that some ppl think you owe other country money, the fact is, you owe it to the Federal Reserve.

Finally, we have a government that is willing to stand up and take the heat for the principles that it believes in. If you thought we were just going to sit back and take it...you and the rest of you yellow bellied liberals are so sadly mistaken.

Yes, you do. A war time President. A president that keeps repeting in his speaches those same word over and over again...The great Axis of Evil. As for the Sitting back and not taking it, it's your own opinion but to my knowledge, Iraq is not related to 9/11. So why invade them if not to finish what Bush Sr. started?

I for one wouldn't mind just wipeing out all arabs, for they are the source of the worlds problems, poor demented souls.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing ppl who says that all arabs must be wiped out, go to Iraq to defend their country from this "great axis of evil". And so far, if we have to compare who has been around the longest, the arabs win by a couple of thousands of years. As for those poor demented souls, they think the same thing about your country! It's a no win situation

If you didn't like the idea of us going to war, why didn't YOUR government do something about it. I'll tell you why, because we have canada in our back pocket and it will always be like that.

Our gov did something about it, we didn't go to war with Iraq. And If you have Canada in your back pocket, how come you couldn't convince us to go to war?

Bye bye canuck-e

For so many reasons i'm gonna remember you typed that!

P.S. San Jose is going to kick Calgary's assssssses! hehe

Who knows, they have to make the better of it since hockey is going bye bye for atleast a year And if we are lucky, the NHL will go down for a long long time Finally some ppl are waking up! Why pay millions a year for someone who has acquire the knowledge to push a puck?

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I for one wouldn't mind just wipeing out all arabs, for they are the source of the worlds problems, poor demented souls.

Excellent point maestro. If the world contained only infantile hate-filled genocidal illiterates such as yourself, we could all be so much safer and happier.

I can't help but wonder what, in your small mind, elevates you above the terrorist creeps you so despise, since you sound exactly like them.

You may live in the most powerful country in the world, but please don't talk about standing up and taking the heat for its principles since your conception of what those principles are is only an embarrassment to us all.

[miss_silver]

Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
Excellent point maestro. If the world contained only infantile hate-filled genocidal illiterates such as yourself, we could all be so much safer and happier.

I can't help but wonder what, in your small mind, elevates you above the terrorist creeps you so despise, since you sound exactly like them.

You may live in the most powerful country in the world, but please don't talk about standing up and taking the heat for its principles since your conception of what those principles are is only an embarrassment to us all.

Gee, and I was trying to be nice & remain polite

[legion]

Hmmmm we are still in Iraq, controling the better part of the south west of the country and we are still very much a part of Europe .... I think

wondering tho.... how come so far only one dutchie got killed overthere, while i don't know how many americans are blown to pieces by now ...... just guessing .... attitude????


edit: typo