I doubt it. For all their alleged stupidity I don't think Americans would be capable of creating a runoff between LePen and Chirac.
Are you a WWII veteran? because you sound like one. America's role in WWII should always be remembered, great sacrifices were made but people like you need to chill, you personally, did not do anything to help liberate France, and don't give me that bull "my father/grandfather would still be alive today if it wasn't for the frogs" because it seems that everyone in America has a relative that fought in WWII. And don't you find it convenient that americans like you love to forget which country liberated you from your masters in the first place? Hatred towards America boggles your mind eh? I'm not surprised.
You know there's still a communist party that puts up signs and posters and actualy win spots in local elections in Italy right?
Can you imagine the top two vote-getters in an American election being David Duke and Pat Buchanan? Because that is the closest I can think of to LePen and Chirac. But we are the stupid ones.
I'm not crazy about Chirac, but I wouldn't compare him to Buchanan. And as bad as LePen is, he's infinitely (and I mean INFINITELY) better than David Duke.
I'm surprised at this post Brad to be honest. You know very well that the vast majority of the world's countries were against the war on Iraq simply because there was no reason for it. I would say most of Europe is fully against the war, not just France. You have already stated that the "war on terror and how it was fought is good for the US in the way it was fought", well historically the French have had links with Iraq and Iran that were going to be affected, hence they disagreed. No need to be so disrespectful to them. The Frech seem to be a huge target of Americans at the moment, I don't get it - a lovely people who quite simply say what they think. Now what does that remind me of........ I think this whole "You are with us or against us" bullsh1t has got to people's head. Bush supporters need to understnd to accept criticism and the failings of him rather than defend every single move he has done. Objectivity would be fantastic. But it is your last point that I disagree with the most. You state that the US helps more around the world than anyone else, yet you are the most hated nation on earth. Think about how the US tried to pressure every country on the "No arresting US soldiers for War Crimes issue", that is very important to a lot of people. Think about the Arab-Israeli conflict. At times it seems that the US see's a totally different picture of this conflict than anyone else. I get Fox and CNN and can't believe the lies and bull that they put on with regards to this subject. Think about Sudan and the bombings, think about Somalia, Zimbabwe - the hatred of the US government in Africa as a whole over the Nestle issue. The simple fact is, that the US has done a lot for the world since the USSR fell. But it has also made many mistakes and has done a lot of wrong. Yet it seems (obviously there are two sides to the story) that a lot of people can't accept this criticism. The comments of "The US helps more people around the world than any other country" is frankly arrogant bull. And it is the arrogant bull that people are starting to really hate. The attitude of "we are better than anyone else, so we can damm well do what we want". Many Europeans find (again, I know that this is a generalisation) that Democrats are more in touch with the reality of what is actually going on in the world than Republicans - hence why most of the rest of the world wanted Kerry to win. I myself am a Conservative and see myelf as pretty right wing for the UK's standard - so overall have always found the Republican viewpoint more attractive. But Bush is the difference. Simple as that, he is not helping anyone to get along.
Bush re-election could bring Norway in out of the EU cold Bush, a uniter, not a divider. Uniting the world against him, as it should be. Not America's authentic interests, but against HIM. Glad to see it, wherever it peacefully manifests itself.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-6256057-0227143?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Repent and convert, you infidels. That Bush's reelection was good news for EU (into a scenario where it is bad news for the whole world) was easily predictable. http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/041105121428.z006vpuv
Sorry, Rick, but it was an attack on the Europeans on the board who feel it is in their interests to tell me (and the US as a whole) what is best for us. Mostly it was to point out that our so called "allies" seem to pick and choose when and where to be allied even though the US has done much in the past to assist them when needed, and I didn't even mention during the Cold War when it was US troops, tanks, and intermediate missles that kept the USSR at bay. You're correct in saying the French had/have links with Iraq and Iran and these are financial links. The French made a lot of money selling technology to Iraq over the years and I don't doubt that they have sold nuclear technology (non-military) to Iran. Their financial interests trumped everything else even at the cost of leaving a brutal dictator in power. How many people can look at the mass graves in Iraq and still say the US was in the wrong here? Well, I knew there would come a time where we didn't agree on something, but it's spirited debate that makes the world a more interesting place then, isn't it?
And on that point I don't disagree with you. Everyone wants things to be done in the way that benifits them most. Its only natural. If having Bush in power benifits you, there's no shame in saying so. I would be benifited by the Tories in the Uk and so will have a debate with anyone who tried to tell me Labour will be better for me. I would agree and disagree. Take the UK for example. We have stood by the US over everything since Sept 11th. Yet before that date, we had a huge problem with a group of blood thirsty terrorist w4nkers who were funded by an American organisation and openly supported in bars accross Boston and New York. One of the fcukers even led the 4th July parade in Boston last year. Im not going to blame any American individual for it, but its an example of where the US didn't support their "closest ally" against a terrorist organisation with links to Al-Qaeda. With Iraq, I, and most Europeans see it in these terms. In the 1990's there was a legitimate reason to wipe Saddam out. He invaded another country. With a UN mandate and with support accross the world plus with the Kurds ready to help, it would of been very easy. Yet the US let the Kurds down, thousands who did rise up after being told they would be supported were gassed. This time, there was made up crap about Al Qaeda connections and WMD's. Lies which were obvious from the beggining. That is the problem. Most of the mass graves were caused by the gassing of the uprising that was promised US support and it was let down. Im not disagreeing he was an awful dictator. But there are many of those around the world. It certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons this happened...... You must also remember that most people here don't see the big deal about Iran as well. Most high street travel agents sell holidays there for gods sake!!! I The only reason Ive choosen Libya over Iran to visit next year is because i think the US could invade, not because I don't think its a safe country. Again I completly agree. I would like to believe that I can have a decent discussion over politics, hate your views, disagree with you completely and still go to a pub for a pint with you later on. I think that Ben Reilly for example on this board, has a lot of very good viewpoints and can certainly hold an interesting discussion. It just so happens that I completly disagree with him about a couple of issues. It doesn't mean I wouldn't get him tickets to a match and have a pint with him though. I took two Republicans to Palace today and utterly disagree with them over their Iraq views. I still had a nice drink with them in the pub before the game though.
I really hate this canard. This was NOT a US government organization. NOT NOT NOT. There are private individuals in Britain doing all sorts of things that are undoubtedly not nice for the US government. But I'm not going to blame it on Tony Blair. When we're talking about international politics, lets leave the individual non government groups out of it, mmmkay?
That's a good reason for not allying with Saddam in 1981. Its not a good reason for invading him now. All those mass graves are over a decade old. If our justification is humanitarian, why aren't we in Darfur now? Saddam was not a humanitarian threat to his people anymore to a large degree. There were certainly plenty of other deserving targets. I really hate this line of reasoning.
With respect (and I will say so more tactfully than many here would) the US government did not make membership of the IRA against US law. Nor did it allow a single one of the numerous extradition requests that we have asked for. Sorry Nice, if you disagree, but this is an issue that is emotive for many Brits, Londoners especially. Lets agree to disagree.