Our European Allies

CSM said:
I guess I dont understand the anti-Bush sentiment you express....despite the rhetoric that was spewed during the presidential campaign, the President of the United States does not wield absolute power. In fact, much of our foriegn, economic, domestic policy, etc. is the responsibility of the Congress.
Yeah I know but Bush is the one who goes to congree with demands, but since the congree is in his favour (I think, but I can check) and has more republican seats it makes sence that they vote in favour of his demands. It's this way in France too...
 
j07950 said:
The whole Halliburton thing is complicated but Dick Cheaney still being linked doesn't really help either does it?! That's mostly what it's about...I believe.

Why is it a bad thing? Cheney was in the private sector before he became Veep and he had a right to earn a living. Many companies pay out deferred compensation as it is a cheaper and easier way to get quality people. I am glad that Cheney and Bush have actually worked in the private sector. I believe it helps them better understand the economy and how businesses operate. I would much prefer somebody like that than a career politician that has no idea what it is like to make a payroll, go to a bank looking for commercial financing, etc., etc. A matter-of-fact, in my opinion that is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. They used to be called the "Party of the Working Man" because they knew what the working man was going through. Now the Democratic party is made up of career politician and attorneys that have no clue what the "Working Man" goes through. THEY are the party that is out of touch.

As for your comment the about the French having done bad/corrupt things too....

Thanks for acknowleging it. But now you must, if you are intellectually honest, acknowledge that their main reason for opposing the war was their corrpution. Not because of it being "wrong". What good is the UN if a two bit dictator like Saddam can thumb his nose at them? What good is the UN if they are not going to enforce their own resolutions and sanctions?

And as I have mentioned a thousand times on this site, it is easy for countries like France, Germany, etc. to say, "we had him contained". Who is "we"? Does the US have a mouse in its pocket? The US and GB were containing him and it we a massive burden to our economies and our military. Therefore, after ten years we had no choice but to go in and shut him down IMHO.
 
j07950 said:
Yeah I know but Bush is the one who goes to congree with demands, but since the congree is in his favour (I think, but I can check) and has more republican seats it makes sence that they vote in favour of his demands. It's this way in France too...

Actually, the President cant DEMAND anything. Most actions have to be presented as a bill by a Congressman (either a representative or Senator). There are exceptions and the President has limited powers (particularly over the military). The Congress however, actually controls the budget and he who controls the budget controls the nation.

In reality, there are many many bills that go before Congress that are Republican based and that dont get passed...There are some really interesting food fights that go on in our Congress!
 
CSM said:
Actually, the President cant DEMAND anything. Most actions have to be presented as a bill by a Congressman (either a representative or Senator). There are exceptions and the President has limited powers (particularly over the military). The Congress however, actually controls the budget and he who controls the budget controls the nation.

In reality, there are many many bills that go before Congress that are Republican based and that dont get passed...There are some really interesting food fights that go on in our Congress!
Yeah same thing in ours...I love watching it on TV.
But the congree being represented by more republicans is in better position to vote for things such as budget extensions and things the president wants done. The bills presented by the republican congressmen are in relation to what the president wants...in some way or another.

As for France maybee the governments reason for not going to war might have in some way been because of coruption, "we" the people were against it, even if the government had been for it. Chirac wasn't totally saying no in the begining about a possible war, he said to get ready if needed. Then it decided against it for a few reasons...That was it...but the fact of the matter is we didn't believe in it, like many other countries all over the world. So corruption or not...it doesn't matter, but it might be true. Than again you can't prove that's their reason since everyone knew the corruption was happening (France and other countries for that matter).
 
j07950 said:
Yeah same thing in ours...I love watching it on TV.
But the congree being represented by more republicans is in better position to vote for things such as budget extensions and things the president wants done. The bills presented by the republican congressmen are in relation to what the president wants...in some way or another.

You are assuming that the GOP votes lockstep with the President when they don't. A matter-of-fact, there are a lot of GOPers that are very upset with the President and blocking or trying to block many of his proposals.
 
j07950 said:
As for France maybee the governments reason for not going to war might have in some way been because of coruption, "we" the people were against it, even if the government had been for it. Chirac wasn't totally saying no in the begining about a possible war, he said to get ready if needed. Then it decided against it for a few reasons...That was it...but the fact of the matter is we didn't believe in it, like many other countries all over the world. So corruption or not...it doesn't matter, but it might be true. Than again you can't prove that's their reason since everyone knew the corruption was happening (France and other countries for that matter).

Fair enough that the "people" were against it. Don't forget though, that is why we elect leaders. So that they can make the "hard" decisions.

Again, please answer my questions about what good is the UN if a two-bit dictator can thumb their nose at them? What good is the UN if they don't enforce their own sanctions and resolutions?
 
freeandfun1 said:
Fair enough that the "people" were against it. Don't forget though, that is why we elect leaders. So that they can make the "hard" decisions.

Again, please answer my questions about what good is the UN if a two-bit dictator can thumb their nose at them? What good is the UN if they don't enforce their own sanctions and resolutions?

That's at least reassuring about congress...

The UN as an institution is great and a great idea if run correctly. There are problems of corruption, so fire everyone and reconstruct from the base. Thats what I think...
 
j07950 said:
There are problems of corruption, so fire everyone and reconstruct from the base. Thats what I think...

I say just disband it and work within worldwide treaties. The UN has always relied on the US to do everything yet they turn around and bitch when we do. If it were not for the US, there would be no UN.

Now I have an honest question for you about the UNSC. Why should France have a seat? Please give me an honest and COMPELLING reason.
 
freeandfun1 said:
I say just disband it and work within worldwide treaties. The UN has always relied on the US to do everything yet they turn around and bitch when we do. If it were not for the US, there would be no UN.

Now I have an honest question for you about the UNSC. Why should France have a seat? Please give me an honest and COMPELLING reason.

Well why shouldn't it?
It's always had a huge diplomatic role. Can you see anyone else filling in? And why don't you think it shouldn't?
 
j07950 said:
I think French peacekeeping troops do a lot of good around the world. Here is a proof. Note that the author is american and from Washington:
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1128/

PS: Ivory coast not a good example of late

While I agree with the article, you should be aware that it is an opinion piece. As I stated before, opinion pieces are not necessarily proof.

Many nations (including France) have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...yes, even the French soldier despite the jokes.
 
CSM said:
While I agree with the article, you should be aware that it is an opinion piece. As I stated before, opinion pieces are not necessarily proof.

Many nations (including France) have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...yes, even the French soldier despite the jokes.
Yup it is an opinion piece but can't be denied. And the French troops are very numerous all over the world. We aren't no small player in this area. And I'll agree with you when you say other nations have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...
 
j07950 said:
Well why shouldn't it?
It's always had a huge diplomatic role. Can you see anyone else filling in? And why don't you think it shouldn't?

Based on size, international influence, etc. I could name a few countries that are more qualified. What about Japan?

Actually, I think one country from each major region of the world would be more apporpriate.

Europe: A unified EU rep
South Asia: India
East Asia: China
South America: Brazil
North America: USA

France is not the country they once were. I know you and other French don't like to hear that, but it is true. I just think that their influence is not as great as it once was and therefore, their place on the UNSC is outdated.

You can tell that their influence is not what it used to be by the fact that their government has become VERY corrupt. If one has influence, they don't have to bribe or be bribed to get things done.
 
j07950 said:
I've often said it when I agree with you guys, never heard anyone of you say you agreed with anything I said. The fact is that everyone here except foreigners agree with Bush's policy, so there is no real debate between americans. It would be nice to find americans that are opposed to what is happening. It would be more interesting as whatever we foreigners say is just bad because we're foreigners. I have used a lot of facts but they are always turned down, just because they are writen by liberals or democrates, that makes sence as the republican party is watching out for it's people, it would never say anything negative on the Bush policies, doesn't that make sence. Maybee I'm narrow minded as you say as much as I accuse you of being, I really am trying to be openminded though and have learned a lot from you guys (being openminded I think).

Not only did I say it, but I gave you rep points when I agreed with what you said. You were even shocked that for a time you were on the positive side in points.
 
there are herer all the things you asked me :
french foreign policy - of course, offcical version, but it can give you an idea -
french history
french foreign legion
french economy
french society
french industry......


The ,you'ld know more things and avoid to say stupid things about France.

;)
 
j07950 said:
Got to go guys...don't fight, be open minded and straight with your facts (very important here it seems)...Peace...

Screw off, communist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top