Whats the Worlds reaction going to be when Bush wins?

[Siddar]

Well we have had a thread for those that can vote may as well have one for those that cant.

[mobster]

Can't speak for everyone else but I know how Kerry and Ketchup Lady will feel.


















http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/hi.jpg

[BadKarma26]

Maybe it will unite the country after they realize that bitching and protesting won't accomplish anything because there is no chance for a new candidate for 4 more years.

[Gringo]

"Not again!"

j/k

[Oxley]

The rich: Yay!
The Poor: Ah, damn.

[OB Kenobi]

Well we have had a thread for those that can vote may as well have one for those that cant.

If Bush wins? Another 9/11, or something similar.

[Easy C.]

Dear God no.

[Argyll]

What a useless and pointless thread....like th World will post their thoughts here? :roll:

[Easy C.]

they could, u never know...

[SeanAshi]

If Bush wins? Another 9/11, or something similar.If Kerry wins? Another 9/11, or something similar.

[Oxley]

Ey Argyll, about time to use your wee bonnie lock button aye?
:)

[Easy C.]

no shh, dont give him any hints...Did i say that out aloud just now?

[OB Kenobi]

If Bush wins? Another 9/11, or something similar.If Kerry wins? Another 9/11, or something similar.

Could very well be. But like I said, I just want to see Bush and his corporate buddies prosecuted for their crimes, that's about the only reason I would vote for Kerry.

I don't doubt that Kerry would bomb Iran just as easily as Bush would once there was no choice left. But Bush rushed off to war, following the advice of the ivory tower Neocon "intellectuals," and now look at the situation. Not going to be easy to get out of it, and perhaps that was something they intended, to drag us into it so we have no choice.

[jmatucd]

Ob, you have the intelligence of a retarded tree squirrel.

You somehow view Bush’s efforts to kill terrorists abroad and introduce democracy into previously tyrannically ruled dictatorships as some incentive to attack the United States? If terrorists hate us because we are toppling their dictatorships and bringing people their freedom and not torture cells – then they deserve to die. We will do to them what we did to Germany during WWII. Free their people from their dictatorships and defeat their armies (read: terrorists, ‘insurgents’) who bent on killing ‘Jews and Americans’ or anyone who threatens the old dictatorship. (This should seem familiar to a degree)

You equate the effort to defeat the terrorists by killing them and freeing the people they terrorize at home as brining forth the next 911. This is a war. And they will lose. The only choice you have is whether you want to fight them on American soil or fix the root of the problem, setting them strait where it originates from. Terror thrives from despotism. Look at Iran, Palestine, etc.

There is only one choice to win this war: kill them all or try to reform them. Luckily for them, we do not employ their methods of mass murder upon civilians. We’re pumping our money into their country to save them – if we wanted to wipe them off the face of the Earth we would have by now. But we’re not like them, but you seem to hate us nonetheless.

We will protect liberty yet again. First Aryans, then Communists, now Islamo-facists. I see a pattern arising. We conquer their lands and give them freedoms they never had. We install democracies and help their people. All I hear from people like you is how we are the devil. Maybe you need a lengthy lesson is history to figure out who the bad guys really are.

[Easy C.]

someone needs a hug.

[perdurabo]

better question is what world will think about USA when Kerry wins and afther few months of its rules it ocures that he is dumber than Bush? :lol:

[expat007]

I voted for him ....
....before I voted against him.

[moughoun]

better question is what world will think about USA when Kerry wins and afther few months of its rules it ocures that he is dumber than Bush? :lol:

Now that would be a kicker :|

[oldsoak]

We've got a right little winger in the office - a guy who reckoned our school kids might need councelling for war related stress :roll:
He worst fear is if Bush gets back in, so I've volunteered to slash his wrists for him should he feel unable to cope.

[Moledet]

Great, now we can build on another hill.

P.S. Watch the clip, it's funny:
http://www.slambush.net/index.html
And I was sarcastic, I wish I had enough money to build on a hill in the west bank.

[scm77]

I can't wait to see the look on the faces of all the hippies with the "Bush=Hitler" signs. rofl rofl :bash:

[Operation Ivy]

I voted for him ....
....before I voted against him. :lol:

[martinexsquaddie]

we thought jerry springer made you look guys look dumb rofl
letting bush get into office again (its not like you voted him in last time) :roll:
Don't think you can get a thinking dog for an entire country rofl

[Freibier]

I hope that Kerry wins just to piss off the underage neocon crowd here.
Parts of my family live in Wilmington/NC and they urge me to visit them, but I won't set foot on US soil as long GWB is in power.

[GAFES]

Everybody get ready for the 3rd World War.

:|

[budanski]

I hope that Kerry wins just to piss off the underage neocon crowd here.
Parts of my family live in Wilmington/NC and they urge me to visit them, but I won't set foot on US soil as long GWB is in power.

The Europeans & Nov. 2: The Wrong Half of Europe is for Kerry
National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200408230903.asp)
John O'Sullivan

If the presidential election still looks open in America itself — the polls show the two candidates continually overtaking each other — Senator John Kerry is agreed to be the firm favorite in Europe. The senator himself claims that European leaders quietly wish him luck, and according to the polls European voters have a deep distaste for George W. Bush too.

This European backing may not be altogether helpful to Kerry. When Adlai Stevenson was asked to explain his landslide defeat by Ike, he quipped: "I was running in the wrong continent."

To judge from how often he talks about Europe, however, Kerry thinks that European support is an electoral bonus as well as a diplomatic one. His theory seems to be that if he is elected, he can rely on the European "allies" to help the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere — and that the American people, knowing this, will vote for him and multilateralism.

But his theory rests on the unstated and shaky assumption that "Europe" equals France and Germany. To be fair, "Europe" did mean France and Germany until yesterday. They jointly dominated the European Union. Once Paris and Brussels had agreed on some policy initiative, they had little difficulty in recruiting enough smaller countries to push it through.

Now that the EU consists of 25 member states, however, Franco-German dominance is crumbling. Eastern Europe is more pro-American than Paris and Brussels; the Baltic states are more free market than the Brussels bureaucracy; all value the national sovereignty they recently recovered from the Soviet Union.

There is now a second bloc of EU countries that look to Britain, Poland, and Italy to advance an Atlanticist agenda of free trade, free markets, and deregulation against the Euro-mercantilists under Franco-German leadership. These two blocs are almost equally balanced. As a result there are several "European" views on most issues.

Take the question of who supports Kerry. Spain's Zapatero (who holds office partly by courtesy of Osama bin Laden) is the only head of government who has openly declared for Kerry. But France's President Chirac and Germany's Helmut Schroeder are silently in Kerry's corner. And most Scandinavian and socialist leaders join them there.

Britain's Tony Blair and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, however, have a clear interest in Bush's reelection. His defeat would weaken them at home. And their support for Bush is shared by some leaders in countries like Poland, Hungary, Latvia, and even Holland who have taken major political risks to put troops in Iraq.

Kerry is oblivious to all this. In particular, he seems not to realize that he and his fellow Democrats have been repeatedly insulting the fifteen European countries in the U.S.-led Iraq Coalition. Although they include the some of the leading military powers in the EU and NATO, they were dismissed at the Boston convention as "countries you can buy on e-Bay." That kind of thing rankles at least as much as Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" — and it annoys America's friends rather than its rivals.

So although half of Europe is leaning to Kerry, it is the wrong half!

And how will the U.S. benefit? Neither France nor Germany nor their camp-followers are likely to heed Kerry's call for troops in Iraq. Some have no troops to send — Germany spends just over one per cent of its gross domestic product on defense — and others like over-stretched France will not commit scarce troops to a venture they believe doomed. Some leaders even want to see the U.S. humbled.

Will France and Germany take a different attitude in future crises if Senator Kerry, as he promises, regularly consults them in a spirit of multilateralism? Again, the prospects are bleak. France and Germany have an outlook on foreign policy entirely different from the viewpoint even of liberal Democrats such as Senator Kerry.

Ever since September 11th, most Americans have concluded that the war on terrorism ultimately requires a willingness to take preemptive military action against the terrorists and their state sponsors before our cities lie in ruins. They would like European support for such a strategy — even a chastened Bush administration now accepts the need for better alliance consultation — but they will not give Europe a veto on it.

In the current Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz mounts a powerful defense of this outlook as a response to the three linked threats of terrorism, rogue states and nuclear proliferation. Reluctantly, Podhoretz sees these threats — not utopian visions of global governance by the U.N. — as the future.

He concludes: "To move into the future meant to substitute pre-emption for deterrence, and to rely on American military might rather than the "soft power" represented by the UN and the other relics of World War III."

In contrast, France and Germany are stuck in the past. They prefer to root their own defense in deterrence, international law and institutions such as the United Nations. As Podhoretz terms it, they are relying on instruments designed for the Cold War rather than for al Qaeda. And whatever consultations a President Kerry offered, they would be unlikely to support the new U.S. strategy — or even to refrain from obstructing it.

Like an inverted Kerry, however, Podhoretz attributes to "the Europeans" what is in fact the view of only half of Europe. Those countries with troops in Iraq have in practice already endorsed the American strategy. There are European political leaders, in addition to Tony Blair, who will make the principled case for it if given encouragement and backing from Washington. And the political debate in Europe is, despite appearances, finely balanced.

Finely balanced — not safely pro-American. The sunny belief — promulgated by the Wall Street Journal editorial page — that the newly appointed EU Commission shows that free-market and Atlanticist Europeans are in the ascendant is as misleading as Mr. Podhoretz's neoconservative despair. An election defeat for Berlusconi in Italy, like the defeat of Aznar's conservatives in Spain, could swing the pendulum back towards Paris and Berlin. So might a switch of allegiance by smaller countries in return for economic or diplomatic benefits. France and Germany will certainly be trying to win them round. There is all to play for.

What this means is that the U.S. must now engage in tough-minded alliance management politics designed to tip the European balance firmly and permanently towards the pro-American Anglo-Italian-Polish bloc — and to revive Atlanticism in European politics

Early last week the president took a small step towards this when he announced that U.S. troops abroad would be "redistributed" — some returning home, some moving from Germany to Eastern Europe. But more needs to be done — and it need not all be negative or obstructive.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is greatly respected throughout Europe, might lead the Bush administration in offering a grand new transatlantic bargain under which the U.S. gives Europe greater influence on defense and diplomacy in return for an American role in Europe's making of economic regulations. That would mean tough but subtle diplomatic interventions by Powell not only in NATO (which the U.S. leads) but also in the EU of which the U.S. is not even a member. If it were to succeed, it would transform the reputation of the Bush administration and of Bush himself in Europe. But it would undoubtedly be uphill work.

Senator Kerry's task is simpler: He must switch his support from our European rivals to our European friends.

[usa320]

Everybody get ready for the 3rd World War.


World war 3 has been waging for about 4 years now... nothing new...

We not look at it as a world war right now, but they didnt look at world war 2 as a world war then either... In 20 years, this will probably be looked back on as world war 3.

When Bush wins, im having a double kegger at my place. Then im gonna go laugh at the hippies with "bush=hitler" signs.

[Fargin]

Well if Kerry wins US and Europe will strenghten their ties and start cooperating again.
If Bush wins US and Europe will strenghten their ties and start cooperating again.

Why, because it's costing too much not to.


If Kerry wins he'll change US' confrontal course or atleast slow it down.
If Bush wins he'll change US' confrontal course or atleast slow it down.

Why, because it's costing too much not to.

If Kerry wins he'll be kneedeep in favours to those who financed his campaign.
If Bush wins he'll be kneedeep in favours to those who financed his campaign.

You should have gotten the drift by now.

Kerry is filthy rich and will continue the tradition of screwing the poor.
Bush is filthy rich and will continue the tradition of screwing the poor.

Who ever wins the election, make sure to watch your back. Black or White, Right or Left, politicians are politicians.

What is important isn't who wins, but if the parties can cooperate with the oposition don't the middle. Unfortunately US is more polarized than ever. The oposition loathes eachother, which doesn't promise a great future for cooperation or democrazy.

[He219]

Like the world is going to 'open up' with Kerry as President. They would only continue to think of us negatively as has become 'custormary' even though they happily adopt, yet reject American pop culture. I'd rather wield the Big Stick istead of reacting to the disparate bickering that has personified European foreign policy throughout history ..
;)

[Fargin]

What I'm saying is that the world will open up no matter who wins. The US presidents isn't as important as the USD.

Kerry can't pull out of Iraq, like Bush can't engage in a preemptive attack against Iran or NK.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Everybody get ready for the 3rd World War.

:|

It's coming no matter who wins the US election. The terror war is just the warm up as groups take sides.

[vryhpyammoadded]

What’s the Worlds reaction going to be when Bush wins?

Well, a lot of people, who fall for the world media melodrama, are going to panic thinking that they’ve got maybe a year before the second coming of Hitler and the third world war.
There will be much mindless running about, flailing of arms and gnashing of teeth as the world media whips its citizens into a frenzy so that there respective interests can come to the ongoing negotiations of world trade and civilizing hoping that the bluster will make Bush give into pressure to give away more of the US economy and power. Bush will make some concessions to appease the blackmail but, it’s really just to shut them up to continue on with the business of filling the cold war vacuum with US aligned free market republics owing his faction a pile of money.

[ibstolidude]

letting bush get into office again (its not like you voted him in last time) :roll:
- if you refer to the 2000 elections I suggest you reeducate yourself to the events surrounding the election. I'm am no huge Bush fan, but that doesn't make this statement any more correct.

[ibstolidude]

Well if Kerry wins US and Europe will strenghten their ties and start cooperating again.
If Bush wins US and Europe will strenghten their ties and start cooperating again.

Why, because it's costing too much not to.


If Kerry wins he'll change US' confrontal course or atleast slow it down.
If Bush wins he'll change US' confrontal course or atleast slow it down.

Why, because it's costing too much not to.

If Kerry wins he'll be kneedeep in favours to those who financed his campaign.
If Bush wins he'll be kneedeep in favours to those who financed his campaign.

You should have gotten the drift by now.

Kerry is filthy rich and will continue the tradition of screwing the poor.
Bush is filthy rich and will continue the tradition of screwing the poor.

Who ever wins the election, make sure to watch your back. Black or White, Right or Left, politicians are politicians.

What is important isn't who wins, but if the parties can cooperate with the oposition don't the middle. Unfortunately US is more polarized than ever. The oposition loathes eachother, which doesn't promise a great future for cooperation or democrazy.
smart post.

[Beowulf]

letting bush get into office again (its not like you voted him in last time) :roll:
- if you refer to the 2000 elections I suggest you reeducate yourself to the events surrounding the election. I'm am no huge Bush fan, but that doesn't make this statement any more correct.

uh-oh...the "stolen election" and "mujahideen=AQ/TB" are stoli pet peeves.

[5jumpchump]

"But Bush rushed off to war"

Oh really . Perhaps you forgot the 9 months we spent wit the UN begging for Saddam to disarm . Oh yeah and the 5 months we spent saber rattling on the Saudi boader all the while giving Saddam the perfect chance to get everything out of the country .

[achilles]

"But Bush rushed off to war"

Oh really . Perhaps you forgot the 9 months we spent wit the UN begging for Saddam to disarm . Oh yeah and the 5 months we spent saber rattling on the Saudi boader all the while giving Saddam the perfect chance to get everything out of the country .

I agree that he didnt 'rush' to any war.
Begging him to disarm? From what? The weapons of mass destruction? I guess this is already an old joke. At least until now but i dont think that any WMD will be even found in Iraq...it doesnt matter anymore anyway.
If Saddan was given the time to dump everything out of the country then what were the US satellites and the rest of the intelligence mechanism doing? I dont think it could have been that easy for Saddam to throw everything out of Iraq, given that all eyes were upon him and his moves. I think the most reasonable explanation is that he didnt have any WMD in the first place. Might have dumped them years ago.

ibstolidude wrote:
martinexsquaddie wrote:

letting bush get into office again (its not like you voted him in last time)

- if you refer to the 2000 elections I suggest you reeducate yourself to the events surrounding the election. I'm am no huge Bush fan, but that doesn't make this statement any more correct.

Beowulf:
uh-oh...the "stolen election" and "mujahideen=AQ/TB" are stoli pet peeves

Most of the evidence suggest that Bush was indeed elected in Florida. But is it true that the aggregate vote (whole US) was marginally in favour of Gore? Just a question without any implications, since i know that such a scenario is possible to other countries as well. (Win more seats with an inferior overall percentage of votes)

[jmatucd]

Please get this right: neocons is the term used to describe liberals from the 1970s and on that saw national defense as a compelling interest and started to become full fledged conservatives while, sometimes clinging to their liberal social views.

it is incorrect to call today's *real* conservatives 'neoconservatives'

we are the real deal, the rest is just imitation cheese.

[Hiroshima]

Really? So what flavor are you? Chedder? Spicey Pepper Jack?

Kidding... ;)

[jmatucd]

Mmmm Spicey Pepper Jack

Just as Reagan’s policy to defeat the Soviets and not make peace with them was a conservative idea, so is defeating the Islamic Fascists that seek our deaths. This is not a new policy for conservatives. In fact, your crazy if you do not stand to defend your country and civilization against the oncoming slaughter of those who want Shariah law to rule over your life and liberty.

Either you stand against the threat, or you falter and accept defeat as do the French. Because, if we fail, there is no one left to save us.

[moughoun]

Mmmm Spicey Pepper Jack

Just as Reagan’s policy to defeat the Soviets and not make peace with them was a conservative idea, so is defeating the Islamic Fascists that seek our deaths. This is not a new policy for conservatives. In fact, your crazy if you do not stand to defend your country and civilization against the oncoming slaughter of those who want Shariah law to rule over your life and liberty.

Either you stand against the threat, or you falter and accept defeat as do the French. Because, if we fail, there is no one left to save us.

That logic is a little loose don't you think, only conservatives defend their countries while liberal's don't, I must be the odd exception since I'm pretty liberal and I serve in my Country's military, btw was there any need for the French comment's, aren't we a little grown up for that type of **** now, the French have been fighting Islamic terrorism for more then 50 year's while the US was supporting quiet a few of those same group's, so spare us the righthous defender of liberty crap :roll:

[ibstolidude]

ibstolidude wrote:
martinexsquaddie wrote:

letting bush get into office again (its not like you voted him in last time)

- if you refer to the 2000 elections I suggest you reeducate yourself to the events surrounding the election. I'm am no huge Bush fan, but that doesn't make this statement any more correct.

Beowulf:
uh-oh...the "stolen election" and "mujahideen=AQ/TB" are stoli pet peeves

Most of the evidence suggest that Bush was indeed elected in Florida. But is it true that the aggregate vote (whole US) was marginally in favour of Gore? Just a question without any implications, since i know that such a scenario is possible to other countries as well. (Win more seats with an inferior overall percentage of votes)
The us Electoral system is NOT based upon popular vote however upon STATE elector votes. It is possible and not unheard of for a candidate to gain popular votes but not enough electoral votes.

[cut]

I can't wait to see the look on the faces of all the hippies with the "Bush=Hitler" signs. rofl rofl :bash:
they be the same as now wouldn't they?

[cut]

I hope that Kerry wins just to piss off the underage neocon crowd here.
Parts of my family live in Wilmington/NC and they urge me to visit them, but I won't set foot on US soil as long GWB is in power.

The Europeans & Nov. 2: The Wrong Half of Europe is for Kerry
National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200408230903.asp)
John O'Sullivan

If the presidential election still looks open in America itself — the polls show the two candidates continually overtaking each other — Senator John Kerry is agreed to be the firm favorite in Europe. The senator himself claims that European leaders quietly wish him luck, and according to the polls European voters have a deep distaste for George W. Bush too.

This European backing may not be altogether helpful to Kerry. When Adlai Stevenson was asked to explain his landslide defeat by Ike, he quipped: "I was running in the wrong continent."

To judge from how often he talks about Europe, however, Kerry thinks that European support is an electoral bonus as well as a diplomatic one. His theory seems to be that if he is elected, he can rely on the European "allies" to help the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere — and that the American people, knowing this, will vote for him and multilateralism.

But his theory rests on the unstated and shaky assumption that "Europe" equals France and Germany. To be fair, "Europe" did mean France and Germany until yesterday. They jointly dominated the European Union. Once Paris and Brussels had agreed on some policy initiative, they had little difficulty in recruiting enough smaller countries to push it through.

Now that the EU consists of 25 member states, however, Franco-German dominance is crumbling. Eastern Europe is more pro-American than Paris and Brussels; the Baltic states are more free market than the Brussels bureaucracy; all value the national sovereignty they recently recovered from the Soviet Union.

There is now a second bloc of EU countries that look to Britain, Poland, and Italy to advance an Atlanticist agenda of free trade, free markets, and deregulation against the Euro-mercantilists under Franco-German leadership. These two blocs are almost equally balanced. As a result there are several "European" views on most issues.

Take the question of who supports Kerry. Spain's Zapatero (who holds office partly by courtesy of Osama bin Laden) is the only head of government who has openly declared for Kerry. But France's President Chirac and Germany's Helmut Schroeder are silently in Kerry's corner. And most Scandinavian and socialist leaders join them there.

Britain's Tony Blair and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, however, have a clear interest in Bush's reelection. His defeat would weaken them at home. And their support for Bush is shared by some leaders in countries like Poland, Hungary, Latvia, and even Holland who have taken major political risks to put troops in Iraq.

Kerry is oblivious to all this. In particular, he seems not to realize that he and his fellow Democrats have been repeatedly insulting the fifteen European countries in the U.S.-led Iraq Coalition. Although they include the some of the leading military powers in the EU and NATO, they were dismissed at the Boston convention as "countries you can buy on e-Bay." That kind of thing rankles at least as much as Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" — and it annoys America's friends rather than its rivals.

So although half of Europe is leaning to Kerry, it is the wrong half!

And how will the U.S. benefit? Neither France nor Germany nor their camp-followers are likely to heed Kerry's call for troops in Iraq. Some have no troops to send — Germany spends just over one per cent of its gross domestic product on defense — and others like over-stretched France will not commit scarce troops to a venture they believe doomed. Some leaders even want to see the U.S. humbled.

Will France and Germany take a different attitude in future crises if Senator Kerry, as he promises, regularly consults them in a spirit of multilateralism? Again, the prospects are bleak. France and Germany have an outlook on foreign policy entirely different from the viewpoint even of liberal Democrats such as Senator Kerry.

Ever since September 11th, most Americans have concluded that the war on terrorism ultimately requires a willingness to take preemptive military action against the terrorists and their state sponsors before our cities lie in ruins. They would like European support for such a strategy — even a chastened Bush administration now accepts the need for better alliance consultation — but they will not give Europe a veto on it.

In the current Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz mounts a powerful defense of this outlook as a response to the three linked threats of terrorism, rogue states and nuclear proliferation. Reluctantly, Podhoretz sees these threats — not utopian visions of global governance by the U.N. — as the future.

He concludes: "To move into the future meant to substitute pre-emption for deterrence, and to rely on American military might rather than the "soft power" represented by the UN and the other relics of World War III."

In contrast, France and Germany are stuck in the past. They prefer to root their own defense in deterrence, international law and institutions such as the United Nations. As Podhoretz terms it, they are relying on instruments designed for the Cold War rather than for al Qaeda. And whatever consultations a President Kerry offered, they would be unlikely to support the new U.S. strategy — or even to refrain from obstructing it.

Like an inverted Kerry, however, Podhoretz attributes to "the Europeans" what is in fact the view of only half of Europe. Those countries with troops in Iraq have in practice already endorsed the American strategy. There are European political leaders, in addition to Tony Blair, who will make the principled case for it if given encouragement and backing from Washington. And the political debate in Europe is, despite appearances, finely balanced.

Finely balanced — not safely pro-American. The sunny belief — promulgated by the Wall Street Journal editorial page — that the newly appointed EU Commission shows that free-market and Atlanticist Europeans are in the ascendant is as misleading as Mr. Podhoretz's neoconservative despair. An election defeat for Berlusconi in Italy, like the defeat of Aznar's conservatives in Spain, could swing the pendulum back towards Paris and Berlin. So might a switch of allegiance by smaller countries in return for economic or diplomatic benefits. France and Germany will certainly be trying to win them round. There is all to play for.

What this means is that the U.S. must now engage in tough-minded alliance management politics designed to tip the European balance firmly and permanently towards the pro-American Anglo-Italian-Polish bloc — and to revive Atlanticism in European politics

Early last week the president took a small step towards this when he announced that U.S. troops abroad would be "redistributed" — some returning home, some moving from Germany to Eastern Europe. But more needs to be done — and it need not all be negative or obstructive.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is greatly respected throughout Europe, might lead the Bush administration in offering a grand new transatlantic bargain under which the U.S. gives Europe greater influence on defense and diplomacy in return for an American role in Europe's making of economic regulations. That would mean tough but subtle diplomatic interventions by Powell not only in NATO (which the U.S. leads) but also in the EU of which the U.S. is not even a member. If it were to succeed, it would transform the reputation of the Bush administration and of Bush himself in Europe. But it would undoubtedly be uphill work.

Senator Kerry's task is simpler: He must switch his support from our European rivals to our European friends.


erm half of europe wants Bush over Kerry? What?

[Old300]

I hope that Kerry wins just to piss off the underage neocon crowd here.
Parts of my family live in Wilmington/NC and they urge me to visit them, but I won't set foot on US soil as long GWB is in power.

The Europeans & Nov. 2: The Wrong Half of Europe is for Kerry
National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200408230903.asp)
John O'Sullivan

If the presidential election still looks open in America itself — the polls show the two candidates continually overtaking each other — Senator John Kerry is agreed to be the firm favorite in Europe. The senator himself claims that European leaders quietly wish him luck, and according to the polls European voters have a deep distaste for George W. Bush too.

This European backing may not be altogether helpful to Kerry. When Adlai Stevenson was asked to explain his landslide defeat by Ike, he quipped: "I was running in the wrong continent."

To judge from how often he talks about Europe, however, Kerry thinks that European support is an electoral bonus as well as a diplomatic one. His theory seems to be that if he is elected, he can rely on the European "allies" to help the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere — and that the American people, knowing this, will vote for him and multilateralism.

But his theory rests on the unstated and shaky assumption that "Europe" equals France and Germany. To be fair, "Europe" did mean France and Germany until yesterday. They jointly dominated the European Union. Once Paris and Brussels had agreed on some policy initiative, they had little difficulty in recruiting enough smaller countries to push it through.

Now that the EU consists of 25 member states, however, Franco-German dominance is crumbling. Eastern Europe is more pro-American than Paris and Brussels; the Baltic states are more free market than the Brussels bureaucracy; all value the national sovereignty they recently recovered from the Soviet Union.

There is now a second bloc of EU countries that look to Britain, Poland, and Italy to advance an Atlanticist agenda of free trade, free markets, and deregulation against the Euro-mercantilists under Franco-German leadership. These two blocs are almost equally balanced. As a result there are several "European" views on most issues.

Take the question of who supports Kerry. Spain's Zapatero (who holds office partly by courtesy of Osama bin Laden) is the only head of government who has openly declared for Kerry. But France's President Chirac and Germany's Helmut Schroeder are silently in Kerry's corner. And most Scandinavian and socialist leaders join them there.

Britain's Tony Blair and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, however, have a clear interest in Bush's reelection. His defeat would weaken them at home. And their support for Bush is shared by some leaders in countries like Poland, Hungary, Latvia, and even Holland who have taken major political risks to put troops in Iraq.

Kerry is oblivious to all this. In particular, he seems not to realize that he and his fellow Democrats have been repeatedly insulting the fifteen European countries in the U.S.-led Iraq Coalition. Although they include the some of the leading military powers in the EU and NATO, they were dismissed at the Boston convention as "countries you can buy on e-Bay." That kind of thing rankles at least as much as Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" — and it annoys America's friends rather than its rivals.

So although half of Europe is leaning to Kerry, it is the wrong half!

And how will the U.S. benefit? Neither France nor Germany nor their camp-followers are likely to heed Kerry's call for troops in Iraq. Some have no troops to send — Germany spends just over one per cent of its gross domestic product on defense — and others like over-stretched France will not commit scarce troops to a venture they believe doomed. Some leaders even want to see the U.S. humbled.

Will France and Germany take a different attitude in future crises if Senator Kerry, as he promises, regularly consults them in a spirit of multilateralism? Again, the prospects are bleak. France and Germany have an outlook on foreign policy entirely different from the viewpoint even of liberal Democrats such as Senator Kerry.

Ever since September 11th, most Americans have concluded that the war on terrorism ultimately requires a willingness to take preemptive military action against the terrorists and their state sponsors before our cities lie in ruins. They would like European support for such a strategy — even a chastened Bush administration now accepts the need for better alliance consultation — but they will not give Europe a veto on it.

In the current Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz mounts a powerful defense of this outlook as a response to the three linked threats of terrorism, rogue states and nuclear proliferation. Reluctantly, Podhoretz sees these threats — not utopian visions of global governance by the U.N. — as the future.

He concludes: "To move into the future meant to substitute pre-emption for deterrence, and to rely on American military might rather than the "soft power" represented by the UN and the other relics of World War III."

In contrast, France and Germany are stuck in the past. They prefer to root their own defense in deterrence, international law and institutions such as the United Nations. As Podhoretz terms it, they are relying on instruments designed for the Cold War rather than for al Qaeda. And whatever consultations a President Kerry offered, they would be unlikely to support the new U.S. strategy — or even to refrain from obstructing it.

Like an inverted Kerry, however, Podhoretz attributes to "the Europeans" what is in fact the view of only half of Europe. Those countries with troops in Iraq have in practice already endorsed the American strategy. There are European political leaders, in addition to Tony Blair, who will make the principled case for it if given encouragement and backing from Washington. And the political debate in Europe is, despite appearances, finely balanced.

Finely balanced — not safely pro-American. The sunny belief — promulgated by the Wall Street Journal editorial page — that the newly appointed EU Commission shows that free-market and Atlanticist Europeans are in the ascendant is as misleading as Mr. Podhoretz's neoconservative despair. An election defeat for Berlusconi in Italy, like the defeat of Aznar's conservatives in Spain, could swing the pendulum back towards Paris and Berlin. So might a switch of allegiance by smaller countries in return for economic or diplomatic benefits. France and Germany will certainly be trying to win them round. There is all to play for.

What this means is that the U.S. must now engage in tough-minded alliance management politics designed to tip the European balance firmly and permanently towards the pro-American Anglo-Italian-Polish bloc — and to revive Atlanticism in European politics

Early last week the president took a small step towards this when he announced that U.S. troops abroad would be "redistributed" — some returning home, some moving from Germany to Eastern Europe. But more needs to be done — and it need not all be negative or obstructive.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is greatly respected throughout Europe, might lead the Bush administration in offering a grand new transatlantic bargain under which the U.S. gives Europe greater influence on defense and diplomacy in return for an American role in Europe's making of economic regulations. That would mean tough but subtle diplomatic interventions by Powell not only in NATO (which the U.S. leads) but also in the EU of which the U.S. is not even a member. If it were to succeed, it would transform the reputation of the Bush administration and of Bush himself in Europe. But it would undoubtedly be uphill work.

Senator Kerry's task is simpler: He must switch his support from our European rivals to our European friends.


erm half of europe wants Bush over Kerry? What?

recently the Left has become enamored of the notion that Osama bin Laden wants Bush, not Kerry, to win, because the current President inflames the passions of would-be jihadis, and so is better for business.

Maybe something similar is going on in Europe: "After 4 more years of Bush we won't have the stomach to depend on America for so many things; this will make ever closer union a foregone conclusion..."

I don't actually believe that. My point is to demonstrate the absurdity of the "Osama wants Dubya to win" nonsense by demonstrating the absurdity of an analogous situation.

[Secret Squirrel]

If you want to talk about absurdity then lets talk about the National Review. ;) If you're dumb enough to believe the National Review, then you're smart enough to be a republican. (of course take the last statement as a humorous jab. ;) )

[mobster]

Whatever dickhead.

A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is a liberal Democrat.

She asks her students to raise their hands if they were liberal Democrats too. Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks.

There is, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd.

The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a liberal Democrat."

Then, asks the teacher, what are you? "Why I'm a libertarian.", boasts the little girl.

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Lucy why she is a libertarian. "Well, I was brought up to trust in myself instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me and do all of my thinking. My Dad and Mom are libertarian, and I am a libertarian too."

The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your Mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?"

A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Lucy, "I'd be a liberal Democrat."

[Old300]

If you want to talk about absurdity then lets talk about the National Review. ;) If you're dumb enough to believe the National Review, then you're smart enough to be a republican. (of course take the last statement as a humorous jab. ;) )

tongue-in-cheek duly noted.

However, that idea is common on the Left. Most of my friends who are very liberal believe that most Republicans are stupid and that, if they were educated/informed/notdroppedontheirheadsatbirth that they'd be Leftists, too.

Anyway, here's a general observation: the great danger in premising the preferability of a political philosophy, at least in part, on the notion that the people on the other side are stupid, is that, in doing so, you make a huge ass out of yourself.

For example, you argued: if A then B. And if C then D.

To paraphrase Billy Madison, "Thank you. We are all dumber now."

[budanski]

If you want to talk about absurdity then lets talk about the National Review. ;) If you're dumb enough to believe the National Review, then you're smart enough to be a republican. (of course take the last statement as a humorous jab. ;) )
This coming from a guy who quotes snope.com to verify Kerry's medals. :roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

Old300, all jabs aside, I'm merely suggesting that if you take everything from the extreme left or right without questioning it, then you've lost the ability to think for yourself. I see it as the same deal with quoting Moore and quoting newsmax. Both sides represent extreme views on opposite sides of the spectrum and one would be wise to question the obviously biased motives of each "extreme".

If you want to talk about absurdity then lets talk about the National Review. ;) If you're dumb enough to believe the National Review, then you're smart enough to be a republican. (of course take the last statement as a humorous jab. ;) )
This coming from a guy who quotes snope.com to debunk Kerry's medals. :roll:

I see that reading newsmax and the national review has softened your critical thinking young grasshopper. ;) But please, if you have something to add to the Kerry's medals debates (some new information, archival evidence(assuming you know what that is?)...etc) please feel free to present it. ;)

Whatever dickhead.

A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is a liberal Democrat.

She asks her students to raise their hands if they were liberal Democrats too. Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks.

There is, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd.

The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a liberal Democrat."

Then, asks the teacher, what are you? "Why I'm a libertarian.", boasts the little girl.

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Lucy why she is a libertarian. "Well, I was brought up to trust in myself instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me and do all of my thinking. My Dad and Mom are libertarian, and I am a libertarian too."

The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your Mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?"

A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Lucy, "I'd be a liberal Democrat."

Now what do we have here?
Name: Mobster
Analysis: Lacks the ability to formulate an opinion or argument that generally doesnt involve posting either a picture or a joke.
conclusion: teenager going through late puberity whose having trouble harnessing his hormones.

enjoy your evening gentlemen. (edited to flip a p into a b. ;) )

[mobster]

teenager going through late puperity

Ahem.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/obvious.jpg

[moughoun]

teenager going through late puperity

Ahem.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/obvious.jpg

What, so your a teenager who like's gymnastic masturbation?

[budanski]

If you want to talk about absurdity then lets talk about the National Review. ;) If you're dumb enough to believe the National Review, then you're smart enough to be a republican. (of course take the last statement as a humorous jab. ;) )
This coming from a guy who quotes snope.com to debunk Kerry's medals. :roll:

I see that reading newsmax and the national review has softened your critical thinking young grasshopper. ;) But please, if you have something to add to the Kerry's medals debates (some new information, archival evidence(assuming you know what that is?)...etc) please feel free to present it. ;)
Ah yes, 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star in less than 4 months (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040823-124014-1219r.htm) with no hospitalization, no cane or limp, no disabilities pay. Matter of fact, he's collected the most medals in the shortest period of time. This would put him up there with Audey Murphey, Alvin York, and George Washington. Quite the gullible one, arent we? Shows your age. ;)

Again, All Kerry have to do is sign the 180 form to release the journals and military medical records then these questions can be easily answered.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

I voted for him ....
....before I voted against him.

rofl rofl

[Gatling]

What the world would say if Bush was reelected? First let's not take anything for granted here, and assume that would be the case. I would be disappointed as I know he is the embodiment of much of the resentment towards America. The US is and will always be a great country, and I seriously love it, but I don't think Bush has been its best leader. In fact IMO he's done nothing but destroyed the reputation and respect of America, so well earned for so many years.I hope it gets it back soon.

[jmatucd]

Reputation and respect?

The United States under Bush has done three things:
1) defend this nation against terrorist, military attack through offensive military force
2) accelerated national missile defense against incoming North Korean and Chinese ICBMs/SLBMs
3) Adopted a ‘your either backing any and all counter-terrorism efforts or you are aiding the enemy’ policy that allows “allies” to truly help us. If a country refuses to identify, find, and kill terrorists then they are not our “allies”, they are working against us and are directly aiding the enemy by helping them elude capture. If it is the case that a government promotes terror itself, we take it out. This is a very simple premise: If you do not help us, you are endangering us. If you endanger us, you are not our ally but our enemy.

A country’s policy toward terrorism determines how the United States treats it. If you help us defeat terrorism internationally, then you are our allies. If you stifle our efforts or aide the enemy, you will die along side your new friends.

[Fargin]

This is why I love the internet.

[StarvingStudent47]

What will be the world's reaction?

Those who support him will cheer, and those who don't will chase down Ralph effing Nader and hang him from the highest tree for sabotaging two close election races in a row.

I've got my pitchfork ready if Nader even gets within 1000 miles of Florida. So who's with me?

[xwar]

Reputation and respect?

The United States under Bush has done three things:
1) defend this nation against terrorist, military attack through offensive military force
2) accelerated national missile defense against incoming North Korean and Chinese ICBMs/SLBMs
3) Adopted a ‘your either backing any and all counter-terrorism efforts or you are aiding the enemy’ policy that allows “allies” to truly help us. If a country refuses to identify, find, and kill terrorists then they are not our “allies”, they are working against us and are directly aiding the enemy by helping them elude capture. If it is the case that a government promotes terror itself, we take it out. This is a very simple premise: If you do not help us, you are endangering us. If you endanger us, you are not our ally but our enemy.

A country’s policy toward terrorism determines how the United States treats it. If you help us defeat terrorism internationally, then you are our allies. If you stifle our efforts or aide the enemy, you will die along side your new friends.


Amen

[OB Kenobi]

Reputation and respect?


The United States under Bush has done three things:
1) defend this nation against terrorist, military attack through offensive military force

We attacked a country that had nothing to do with it. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Especially Pakistan, with it's nukes!

This is not to mention that this first attack, the invasion of Iraq, was woefully mishandled, so much so that it is on the verge of failure at this point.

If Bush is reelected he's going to be a lame duck president. He may try to start more wars, but I don't think anyone will follow him off a cliff this time.

So much for PNAC's bright ideas.


2) accelerated national missile defense against incoming North Korean and Chinese ICBMs/SLBMs

Which doesn't work. Not to mention that NK and China have no intention of nuclear war against us or anyone else. No one is that stupid. The NMD is doing zero to protect us against nukes that can be smuggled in aboard ships, trucks, or some other low profile method, it's like the Maginot Line, but it sure is great for those contractors working on it, they're getting filthy rich selling a product that doesn't work!

3) Adopted a ‘your either backing any and all counter-terrorism efforts or you are aiding the enemy’ policy that allows “allies” to truly help us. If a country refuses to identify, find, and kill terrorists then they are not our “allies”, they are working against us and are directly aiding the enemy by helping them elude capture. If it is the case that a government promotes terror itself, we take it out. This is a very simple premise: If you do not help us, you are endangering us. If you endanger us, you are not our ally but our enemy.


Yeah, let me know when Saudi Arabia and Pakistan actually go along with this. Or anyone else. Just who are you talking about in the Islamic world that has changed their mind after 9/11 that wasn't already loosely allied with us? You mean Libya? Oh yeah, right, Libya's been trying to shed that terrorist image for the past decade. Still, it's just an image, want to bet they're still aiding terror?


A country’s policy toward terrorism determines how the United States treats it. If you help us defeat terrorism internationally, then you are our allies. If you stifle our efforts or aide the enemy, you will die along side your new friends.

I think the rest of the world has something to say about that.

[Gatling]

jmatucdA country’s policy toward terrorism determines how the United States treats it. If you help us defeat terrorism internationally, then you are our allies. If you stifle our efforts or aide the enemy, you will die along side your new friends. Some countries in Europe, mister, were dealing with islamic terrorism back when the major threat to US natl security was a girl named Monica Lewinsky. I don't know who you 're refering to when you sayIf you stifle our efforts or aide the enemy, you will die along side your new friends. but the facts tell us today that the war on terror has been slow footed because of another war that has yet to bear fruit. PS: I hope they teach you in your wonderful school , that an ultimatum is not the best way to make friends in life, for it could spare you a lot of failures{sounds familiar?} My favourite quote : " From the sublime to the ridicule is but a step" Napoleon Bonaparte

[jmatucd]

“We attacked a country that had nothing to do with it. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Especially Pakistan, with it's nukes!”

We do not invade allied nations. We have extensive military bases in Saudi Arabia protecting the kingdom and our own interest. The House of Saud has stated that they are with us, and not against us in this struggle – they know what noncompliance would lead to. As for Pakistan, we are allied with President Musharraf – he is helping us find al-Qaeda types and supplying us with intel. Therefore, he is our ally and it would be supremely stupid, as you suggest to attack them. If a friendly president (read:dictator) is willing to play ball with you and prevent the ISI and Islamic fascists from acquiring Pakistan’s nuclear arms, then you can’t possibly tell me there is some reason to attack them? You need to start using your brain.

“This is not to mention that this first attack, the invasion of Iraq, was woefully mishandled, so much so that it is on the verge of failure at this point. “

Apparently you know nothing of the situation in Iraq: We have a government and 100,000 US soldiers propping it up with bullets and the will to kill. Nothing is on the verge of failure, al-Sadr has either run away to Iran or is cowering somewhere – he will be killed soon, he is a non-player, the mosque is being shut down from all sides nice and easy.

Despite the wishes of people like you, we will succeed in establishing a democracy where a dictatorship once existed. We have proven ourselves in Germany and Japan. I’ll be damned if you spread your nonsensical propaganda around. Following in the footsteps of the KGB’s propagandist efforts is no virtue. The West will crush all opposition to democracy, human rights, and we will put down tyranny wherever it may lie. Our track record is pretty good the last I checked. It may be a slow process – but we don’t give up easy.

“If Bush is reelected he's going to be a lame duck president. He may try to start more wars, but I don't think anyone will follow him off a cliff this time.”

Your understanding of American politics is lacking. Having 4 years of the presidency extra typically leaves the incumbent on a principled rampage of getting policy implemented that would be normally politically infeasible.


“Which doesn't work. Not to mention that NK and China have no intention of nuclear war against us or anyone else. No one is that stupid. The NMD is doing zero to protect us against nukes that can be smuggled in aboard ships, trucks, or some other low profile method, it's like the Maginot Line, but it sure is great for those contractors working on it, they're getting filthy rich selling a product that doesn't work!”

Sigh! The missile defense program has proven time and again that it can intercept and kill incoming ICBMs in the real world. Your entire line of thought is based on inaccurate information (as usual – you would have made Goebbels proud!). You somehow know that China and the DPRK do not desire to wage nuclear war against us? I suppose you would have claimed this was also the Soviet position as well! Ha, the only reason why the Chinese will not attack is because we can now repel a missile attack’s numerical strength and kill every living thing in China 200 times over. I root for the good guys; I am not an apologist for tyrannical, murderous regimes like China or the DPRK like you are.

Yes, an airborne missile defense system does not protect against nuclear weapons moves by sea or land. At least you brain is functioning a little.

“Yeah, let me know when Saudi Arabia and Pakistan actually go along with this. Or anyone else. Just who are you talking about in the Islamic world that has changed their mind after 9/11 that wasn't already loosely allied with us? You mean Libya? Oh yeah, right, Libya's been trying to shed that terrorist image for the past decade. Still, it's just an image, want to bet they're still aiding terror?”

On 9/11 they were given a choice in writing– compliance or invasion. They chose wisely.

I don’t understand the rest of your point. Alliances work when allies work toward a common goal. In this case, this is comprised of defeating Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that is attacking both the US and desires to topple the House of Saud as well as Musharraf while installing Islamic-law dictatorships where women are treated lower than dogs.

Like I said, alliances work based on the functioning of the partners in the alliance. If someone does not hold their end of the bargain, the alliance is dissolved and the appropriate measures are taken to counteract the loss.

“I think the rest of the world has something to say about that.”

I don’t care what the rest of the world think about that. We will wipe terrorism off the face of this planet, with or without the approval of the French. Alliances work on a functional basis – you must hold up your end of the bargain or it doesn’t constitute an alliance, obviously. We have no need for your approval or any imaginary French / German / Swiss alliance. We are here to kill terrorists and destroy dictatorships that foster terror internationally (as Saddam did by publicly giving $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian suicide bomber) or internally (as Saddam did with mass murder by death squads, chemical weapons or otherwise) – not play politics with you cowardly losers.


“Some countries in Europe, mister, were dealing with islamic terrorism back when the major threat to US natl security was a girl named Monica Lewinsky. I don't know who you 're refering to when you say”

Perhaps you are new to American Politics: The Hawks are predominately Conservatives. Conservatives impeached Clinton because he couldn’t keep his eye on the ball, rather he was occupied staring at an intern’s head. Perhaps now you see why he was kicked in the rear end for his ****? Bomb an aspirin factory but don’t arrest bin laden or kill him when he is offered NUMEROUS (documented) times by Sudan, the Saudis, and special forces assigned to follow him. We don’t play politics with national security; we kill people when necessary – political backing or no.


“but the facts tell us today that the war on terror has been slow footed because of another war that has yet to bear fruit. PS: I hope they teach you in your wonderful school , that an ultimatum is not the best way to make friends in life, for it could spare you a lot of failures{sounds familiar?} My favourite quote : " From the sublime to the ridicule is but a step" Napoleon Bonaparte”

You seem to not understand the fundamental tenets of self-defense. You kill the attacker at all costs. If others do not help you and want to kiss their own asses then they are free to do so at their own peril. We place ultimatums for a reason, so people understand this is their last chance before we kill them. Repent or be brought to justice by our armed forces.

Success is not gauged by the number of friends you boast – it is measured by the actions you take. I am not here to make friends; I am here to assure my enemy dies.

[moughoun]

“

Success is not gauged by the number of friends you boast – it is measured by the actions you take. I am not here to make friends; I am here to assure my enemy dies.

So will you being joing the military anytime soon, or is the Texas ANG recruiting again, how are they going to die here exactly?, by reading your sanctimonious post's or what ;) , get your self a room for your self and your ego, then get it, it on p-)

F

[jmatucd]

As pointed out in a another thread, its not likely they would allow me in the service due to certain ‘problems’ attributable to genetics etc that wouldn’t help in a combat situation / role. I’m more than glad to sit behind a desk compiling intelligence or taking part in R&D etc. But, there is no way they would let me in as a combat troop (I am fairly in shape, it merely comes down to ‘unfixable’ physical problems that would hold me back)

otherwise, I desire to serve my nation in a time of war - in the best (maybe only) way I can -> eg I need skills to get a desk job, and to acquire those skills I need an education etc

[Laworkerbee]

OB Kenobi

We attacked a country that had nothing to do with it. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Especially Pakistan, with it's nukes!

whats this "we" garbage, are you not the one who claims to be a Paki Peacekeeper?.

[Old300]

“

Success is not gauged by the number of friends you boast – it is measured by the actions you take. I am not here to make friends; I am here to assure my enemy dies.

So will you being joing the military anytime soon, or is the Texas ANG recruiting again, how are they going to die here exactly?, by reading your sanctimonious post's or what ;) , get your self a room for your self and your ego, then get it, it on p-)

F

I just remembered something that's been said before, although I haven't noticed it written around here recently:

joining the Texas National Guard right now is pretty much the same thing as asking to be sent to the Middle East. Eventually, anyway.

I've read similar comments about the Texas ANG and Vietnam: there was a good chance that Bush would be sent to Vietnam with his Guard unit.

I don't know whether that's true or not. But it sounds reasonable to me.

[moughoun]

“

Success is not gauged by the number of friends you boast – it is measured by the actions you take. I am not here to make friends; I am here to assure my enemy dies.

So will you being joing the military anytime soon, or is the Texas ANG recruiting again, how are they going to die here exactly?, by reading your sanctimonious post's or what ;) , get your self a room for your self and your ego, then get it, it on p-)

F

I just remembered something that's been said before, although I haven't noticed it written around here recently:

joining the Texas National Guard right now is pretty much the same thing as asking to be sent to the Middle East. Eventually, anyway.

I've read similar comments about the Texas ANG and Vietnam: there was a good chance that Bush would be sent to Vietnam with his Guard unit.

I don't know whether that's true or not. But it sounds reasonable to me.

The first part was ironic humour nothing more ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

I just remembered something that's been said before, although I haven't noticed it written around here recently:

joining the Texas National Guard right now is pretty much the same thing as asking to be sent to the Middle East. Eventually, anyway.

I've read similar comments about the Texas ANG and Vietnam: there was a good chance that Bush would be sent to Vietnam with his Guard unit.

I don't know whether that's true or not. But it sounds reasonable to me.

It isnt true. It's not a secret that if you wanted to avoid being drafted, then the NG was your best bet if you're number was coming up soon. The aircraft Bush trained for was in the process of being phased out of Vietnam. And he just happened to be bumped up the long waiting list to the top even though this scores were sub-par. Of course i'm not saying that if you joined the NG or the ANG that there was zero chance of seeing combat. But, it was a better option, if you wanted to try and avoid the war, than being drafted.

[Old300]

I just remembered something that's been said before, although I haven't noticed it written around here recently:

joining the Texas National Guard right now is pretty much the same thing as asking to be sent to the Middle East. Eventually, anyway.

I've read similar comments about the Texas ANG and Vietnam: there was a good chance that Bush would be sent to Vietnam with his Guard unit.

I don't know whether that's true or not. But it sounds reasonable to me.

It isnt true. It's not a secret that if you wanted to avoid being drafted, then the NG was your best bet if you're number was coming up soon. The aircraft Bush trained for was in the process of being phased out of Vietnam. And he just happened to be bumped up the long waiting list to the top even though this scores were sub-par. Of course i'm not saying that if you joined the NG or the ANG that there was zero chance of seeing combat. But, it was a better option, if you wanted to try and avoid the war, than being drafted.

sure. I buy that. I know that Bush got preferential treatment, and it's one of the things - along with doubling the education budget, creating a prescription drug benefit, and increasing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts - that makes me less enthusiastic about him than I'd otherwise be.

I was just noting that serving in the Texas ANG was not exactly the equivalent of spending a few years in Canada, which is what, I think, it has somehow come to mean