Why Bush has to leave ?

[padisha emperor]

link about this


Why he must leave :
"These people do not rest(base). Do not stop(arrest). Do not blow. These people have a leader, George W. Bush, and a program. An outfit next to which Ronald Reagan's reforms make small player: a justice colonized by conservative judges, who carry(wear) their religion over the shoulder; a Supreme Court populated with liegemen, to the right quite; a legal system strengthened by Patriot Act of limitation of the liberties in the name of the antiterrorism, which, sees out and developed the muscle, laughs as at a bad luck of the rights of the persons; a " major fiscal reform ", to resume(to take back) the word of Bush's close, where the injustice competes for him(it) in the irresponsible; a partial privatization of the pensions and an appeal always wider in the private for the health insurance;A foreign policy led(driven) by a president who " will not try to obtain a permission to defend(forbid) the Americans " (dixit Dick Cheney) but who has already lost 1000 of his soldiers on the Iraqi ground; a crusade against the terrorism which, although justified in its foundations, is incapable to extirpate the Islamic germ of Al-Qaida and managed of the miracle to encourage its metastases; a refusal to involve in the regulation(payment) of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict which returns the peace impossible for the Middle East.

When the rest of the world looks four years of bushisme, it is the balance sheet(assessment) which seems to him(her) appalling: an unprecedented isolation on the world scene(stage); a leadership of unequalled arrogance; a fretful and intolerant religiosity; A social and fiscal policy always more inequitable; a company(society) where the number of persons without health insurance reaches(affects) 43 millions (in increase of 5 millions); a total contempt for the environment. But the most worrying is to come. Whether it is in economy (see p. 20), company(society) (p. 12), or in international politics(policy) (p. 26), George W. Bush's conservative revolution is far from being finished. Will his(her) partisans moreover be ever satisfied? We can rely on the zeal of missionary of the ideologists of the White House not to stop(arrest) in the middle of the ford. It is indeed it who(which) terrifies half of the United States and who worries, in France and in the world, the friends about the biggest of the democracies.
Contrary to the election of 2000, when certain Greens banked cynically on Bush's victory to give a boost to their troops, there is not any more today than a handle of partisans of Ralph Nader to see in this election that a political event. Advertisement The majority of the Americans, in a camp as in the other one, understood well the stake in this confrontation not as the others: it is, more than ever, about a choice of society."

from the website of the "nouvel observateur". I use the translator of the site. So, when some words are in (), you have to choice between this one and the before word for the good sense.

 

[dilloduck]

link about this


Why he must leave :
"These people do not rest(base). Do not stop(arrest). Do not blow. These people have a leader, George W. Bush, and a program. An outfit next to which Ronald Reagan's reforms make small player: a justice colonized by conservative judges, who carry(wear) their religion over the shoulder; a Supreme Court populated with liegemen, to the right quite; a legal system strengthened by Patriot Act of limitation of the liberties in the name of the antiterrorism, which, sees out and developed the muscle, laughs as at a bad luck of the rights of the persons; a " major fiscal reform ", to resume(to take back) the word of Bush's close, where the injustice competes for him(it) in the irresponsible; a partial privatization of the pensions and an appeal always wider in the private for the health insurance;A foreign policy led(driven) by a president who " will not try to obtain a permission to defend(forbid) the Americans " (dixit Dick Cheney) but who has already lost 1000 of his soldiers on the Iraqi ground; a crusade against the terrorism which, although justified in its foundations, is incapable to extirpate the Islamic germ of Al-Qaida and managed of the miracle to encourage its metastases; a refusal to involve in the regulation(payment) of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict which returns the peace impossible for the Middle East.

When the rest of the world looks four years of bushisme, it is the balance sheet(assessment) which seems to him(her) appalling: an unprecedented isolation on the world scene(stage); a leadership of unequalled arrogance; a fretful and intolerant religiosity; A social and fiscal policy always more inequitable; a company(society) where the number of persons without health insurance reaches(affects) 43 millions (in increase of 5 millions); a total contempt for the environment. But the most worrying is to come. Whether it is in economy (see p. 20), company(society) (p. 12), or in international politics(policy) (p. 26), George W. Bush's conservative revolution is far from being finished. Will his(her) partisans moreover be ever satisfied? We can rely on the zeal of missionary of the ideologists of the White House not to stop(arrest) in the middle of the ford. It is indeed it who(which) terrifies half of the United States and who worries, in France and in the world, the friends about the biggest of the democracies.
Contrary to the election of 2000, when certain Greens banked cynically on Bush's victory to give a boost to their troops, there is not any more today than a handle of partisans of Ralph Nader to see in this election that a political event. Advertisement The majority of the Americans, in a camp as in the other one, understood well the stake in this confrontation not as the others: it is, more than ever, about a choice of society."

from the website of the "nouvel observateur". I use the translator of the site. So, when some words are in (), you have to choice between this one and the before word for the good sense.

Though the translaton is poor it is apparently and opinion piece written by a Frenchman who thinks it would be bad for Bush to be re-elected. Frances' oppostion to Bush is already known (as are the reasons )

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey Padesha, thanks for your concern, but as one of his leigemen, let me tell you our only intention is to undo the harm the leftist, socialist thinkers such as yourself have done to our nation and our world.

 

[padisha emperor]

From the "Nouvel observateur"

"Strengthen the second conservative revolution The crusader of the ultra-right Make better than Reagan! With his re-election, junior Bush wants to obtain a solid majority at the Congress to banish the abortion as the homosexual marriage and to name(appoint) everywhere extreme reactionaries to change durably the C' company is a barometer of the conservative influence: every four years, the right wing of the republican Party shows itself to the agreement which indicates(appoints) the candidate for the White House. In 1992, she(it) had lined up behind Pat Buchanan, a Le Pen made in the USA the speech of which had frightened the moderate and contributed to the defeat of Bush father. In 1996, majority morale had appeared in force to San Diego, making adopt a muscular platform which had again frightened the Americans and helped Bill Clinton to gain(win) his re-election in an armchair. In 2000, having held(retained) the lesson, the right had lined up most discreetly possible behind his(her) candidate, George W. Bush. And in 2004?She(It) is well established. His(her,its) major figures are received with a red carpet(mat) to the White House. Some of his(her) representatives are downright a part of the first circle of the president, as the former(ancient) director of Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, key man of the campaign(country) of Bush. On the eve of the republican agreement, very secret council for the national Politics(Policy), gathered(combined) in New York, so saw disentangling the guns top of the house Bush. Based in 1981 by extreme reactionaries worried of anchoring the country very to the right, the council was not disappointed by Bill Frist's speech, republican leader of the Senate. " The fate of our nation, underlined very reactionnary elected, rests(bases) on the shoulders of the conservative movement. "
George W. Bush does not simply dream to equal Reagan. He wishes to exceed him(it). In 2003, while he(it) begins to prepare his(its) re-election, he throws(launches) to his councillors(advisers): " do not give me a solitary victory. I do not want of what Nixon had. I do not want of what Reagan had. " What does he want, exactly? Widen his(her,its) majority at the Congress, to be able to complete its conservative revolution. In the ideal, Bush would like to have 60 senators (on 100) behind him, against 51 at present, to neutralize any vague desire of blocking on behalf of the democratic minority. Everything would then be possible: reduce of taxes to sucker (see Jean - Gabriel Fredet's article, p. 20), renewal, by hardening him(it), of Patriot Act which reduces the public liberties in the name of the fight(wrestling) against the terrorism, the recession(drop) of the right(law) for the abortion, the constitutional amendment banishing the homosexual marriage, Progressive privatization of the educational system, the health, the pensions, etc.

Karl Rove, his chief strategist, would like to see Bush republishing the exploit of the president McKinley, in 1896. This year, he says, " somebody found the means to create a coalition of government which lasted of numerous years. In the same way, somebody is going to invent a new way of governing(steering) [], and he should be able to benefit from a period of similar dominion ". It somebody, naturally, is his(her) "boss".
Even if it seems not very probable that the republicans take 60 seats to the Senate, the Bush camp firmly hopes to keep(guard) a simple majority for the Congress, there where Reagan had had to compose with a democratic House of Representatives. But it is not the only forehead(front) on which "43" (Bush's usual nickname, 43rd president of the United States) fights to advance his muscular program. In three years, he(it) obtained the confirmation of more than 175 federal judges, named(appointed) to life. A lot, very to the right, were preset by Federalist Society, a movement of ultraconservative magistrates. Of Al Gonzales's confession, lawyer(avocado) of the White House, this " record appointment of federal judges [] represents maybe the most durable legacy of this president ". But the first prize is obviously the Supreme Court, among which several judges approach a canonical age and will retire (or will cross(spend) the weapon to the left) in coming four years. On the subjects of company(society) as the abortion, the Court often established(constituted) the last rampart - often with a single voice(vote) of majority - against a seizure of the moral right. Little thing(matter) would be enough so that the equivalent of our Constitutional Council becomes a " court(yard) Scalia ", Of the name of one of the most extremist judges: 2 judges on 9 only owe their appointment to a president or a democratic room(chamber). The conservative activists already get ready for such a scenario: they make for example everything so that the Supreme Court pronounces again on the law of 2003 banishing the abortive said procedure " by partial birth ", by hoping that the affair(business) will be examined by a Court sympathizer.
The control of the Congress, most of the federal Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court would establish(constitute) an unprecedented control lever to complete the conservative revolution begun(affected) here is more than twenty years by Reagan. As far as George Bush well intends to strengthen this majority, to make it durable by all the means: electoral boundary changes favorable to the republicans, put in section settled(adjusted) by the lobbies, the skillful dressing of "common sense" to mask radical changes. His(Her,Its) crusade was only beginning. As noted it the young person Henry Kissinger in his doctoral thesis, " the distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened [] but that nothing can reassure him(it). Only the absolute safety(security) - the neutralization of the opponent - is considered as a sufficient(self-important) guarantee ". Now " it seems clear that we should consider the American right - which maintaining controls actually the administration, both rooms(chambers) of the Congress, a good part of the justice and a good slice(edge) of the media - as a revolutionary power ", estimates(esteems) Paul Krugman, the editorial writer of "New york Times".
With his allies of the moral right, Bush wants to encourage what he qualified in 1999 of " return of stick against the cultural excesses of the 1960s and 1970 ". His(Her,Its) idea of " moral America " making equal game(set,play) with tolerant America is a fiction: the American company(society) quickly changes, and certainly not in the sense(direction) wished by the conservatives(curators). But as George Bush counts above all on a historic mobilization of these conservatives(curators) to be elected, he(it) pays attention to it. On the eve of the election, he(it) promises to them discreetly to pursue the engaged(started) revolution. Later? In square man who has only a word, he(it) will hold his(its) promises. In 2000, many had bet on a centrist, pragmatic president Bush. Four years later, more nobody ventures in such a forecast! "

link about this article

 

[dilloduck]

From the "Nouvel observateur"

"Strengthen the second conservative revolution The crusader of the ultra-right Make better than Reagan! With his re-election, junior Bush wants to obtain a solid majority at the Congress to banish the abortion as the homosexual marriage and to name(appoint) everywhere extreme reactionaries to change durably the C' company is a barometer of the conservative influence: every four years, the right wing of the republican Party shows itself to the agreement which indicates(appoints) the candidate for the White House. In 1992, she(it) had lined up behind Pat Buchanan, a Le Pen made in the USA the speech of which had frightened the moderate and contributed to the defeat of Bush father. In 1996, majority morale had appeared in force to San Diego, making adopt a muscular platform which had again frightened the Americans and helped Bill Clinton to gain(win) his re-election in an armchair. In 2000, having held(retained) the lesson, the right had lined up most discreetly possible behind his(her) candidate, George W. Bush. And in 2004?She(It) is well established. His(her,its) major figures are received with a red carpet(mat) to the White House. Some of his(her) representatives are downright a part of the first circle of the president, as the former(ancient) director of Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, key man of the campaign(country) of Bush. On the eve of the republican agreement, very secret council for the national Politics(Policy), gathered(combined) in New York, so saw disentangling the guns top of the house Bush. Based in 1981 by extreme reactionaries worried of anchoring the country very to the right, the council was not disappointed by Bill Frist's speech, republican leader of the Senate. " The fate of our nation, underlined very reactionnary elected, rests(bases) on the shoulders of the conservative movement. "
George W. Bush does not simply dream to equal Reagan. He wishes to exceed him(it). In 2003, while he(it) begins to prepare his(its) re-election, he throws(launches) to his councillors(advisers): " do not give me a solitary victory. I do not want of what Nixon had. I do not want of what Reagan had. " What does he want, exactly? Widen his(her,its) majority at the Congress, to be able to complete its conservative revolution. In the ideal, Bush would like to have 60 senators (on 100) behind him, against 51 at present, to neutralize any vague desire of blocking on behalf of the democratic minority. Everything would then be possible: reduce of taxes to sucker (see Jean - Gabriel Fredet's article, p. 20), renewal, by hardening him(it), of Patriot Act which reduces the public liberties in the name of the fight(wrestling) against the terrorism, the recession(drop) of the right(law) for the abortion, the constitutional amendment banishing the homosexual marriage, Progressive privatization of the educational system, the health, the pensions, etc.

Karl Rove, his chief strategist, would like to see Bush republishing the exploit of the president McKinley, in 1896. This year, he says, " somebody found the means to create a coalition of government which lasted of numerous years. In the same way, somebody is going to invent a new way of governing(steering) [], and he should be able to benefit from a period of similar dominion ". It somebody, naturally, is his(her) "boss".
Even if it seems not very probable that the republicans take 60 seats to the Senate, the Bush camp firmly hopes to keep(guard) a simple majority for the Congress, there where Reagan had had to compose with a democratic House of Representatives. But it is not the only forehead(front) on which "43" (Bush's usual nickname, 43rd president of the United States) fights to advance his muscular program. In three years, he(it) obtained the confirmation of more than 175 federal judges, named(appointed) to life. A lot, very to the right, were preset by Federalist Society, a movement of ultraconservative magistrates. Of Al Gonzales's confession, lawyer(avocado) of the White House, this " record appointment of federal judges [] represents maybe the most durable legacy of this president ". But the first prize is obviously the Supreme Court, among which several judges approach a canonical age and will retire (or will cross(spend) the weapon to the left) in coming four years. On the subjects of company(society) as the abortion, the Court often established(constituted) the last rampart - often with a single voice(vote) of majority - against a seizure of the moral right. Little thing(matter) would be enough so that the equivalent of our Constitutional Council becomes a " court(yard) Scalia ", Of the name of one of the most extremist judges: 2 judges on 9 only owe their appointment to a president or a democratic room(chamber). The conservative activists already get ready for such a scenario: they make for example everything so that the Supreme Court pronounces again on the law of 2003 banishing the abortive said procedure " by partial birth ", by hoping that the affair(business) will be examined by a Court sympathizer.
The control of the Congress, most of the federal Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court would establish(constitute) an unprecedented control lever to complete the conservative revolution begun(affected) here is more than twenty years by Reagan. As far as George Bush well intends to strengthen this majority, to make it durable by all the means: electoral boundary changes favorable to the republicans, put in section settled(adjusted) by the lobbies, the skillful dressing of "common sense" to mask radical changes. His(Her,Its) crusade was only beginning. As noted it the young person Henry Kissinger in his doctoral thesis, " the distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened [] but that nothing can reassure him(it). Only the absolute safety(security) - the neutralization of the opponent - is considered as a sufficient(self-important) guarantee ". Now " it seems clear that we should consider the American right - which maintaining controls actually the administration, both rooms(chambers) of the Congress, a good part of the justice and a good slice(edge) of the media - as a revolutionary power ", estimates(esteems) Paul Krugman, the editorial writer of "New york Times".
With his allies of the moral right, Bush wants to encourage what he qualified in 1999 of " return of stick against the cultural excesses of the 1960s and 1970 ". His(Her,Its) idea of " moral America " making equal game(set,play) with tolerant America is a fiction: the American company(society) quickly changes, and certainly not in the sense(direction) wished by the conservatives(curators). But as George Bush counts above all on a historic mobilization of these conservatives(curators) to be elected, he(it) pays attention to it. On the eve of the election, he(it) promises to them discreetly to pursue the engaged(started) revolution. Later? In square man who has only a word, he(it) will hold his(its) promises. In 2000, many had bet on a centrist, pragmatic president Bush. Four years later, more nobody ventures in such a forecast! "

link about this article

Whats tour point here dish-----that some french dude hates bush? we know that!
oh ya
4- English -All posts will be made in the English language. Non English posts will be deleted.

 

[padisha emperor]

From the "Nouvel Observateur"

"The antiAmericanism progresses all around the world

The fireman pyromaniac of the hatred Indifferent to the hostility which it arouses, Bush believes that he can Americanize the world without globalizing America. In case of re-election, the country risks to pay dearly this arrogance

Never the antiAmericanism went as well. Our " sweet power ", this capacity of America to be convinced and to be seduced in a peaceful way, is in free-fall, asserts in Harvard Joseph Nye, a dean of the Kennedy School (American ENA) and the inventor of this concept of " soft power ". Abroad, the unpopularity of our politics(policy) is for the top. " " Everybody hates us ", sighs, the wild middle, the melancholic middle, Kurt Vonnegut, one of the biggest contemporary American novelists. " When America pursues France of its vengeance, the whole world is in the balcony. And this time, for the whole world, it is America, not France, which lost the head. At the time of the McCarthyism, Sartre accused America To have become crazy. Today, he indeed has to laugh in his grave ", explains the historian Tony Judt, the specialist of the relations Europe-USA.
Of the annoyance in the confrontation, the report of the difference in the declared hatred, inquiries show the scale of the degradation of the image of the United States in the world. In March, a little bit before the attacks(attempts) of Madrid, a poll(survey) realized by the Pew Research Center revealed that 82 % of the Germans, 78 % of the French people and 58 % of the British judged the little reliable Americans. In Morocco, in Germany, in Turkey, 65 % of people asked considered that the main objective of the United States was not the fight(wrestling) against the terrorism but the seizure by the oil(petroleum) or the world hegemony. In the Moslem countries, the refusal(discharge) of the United States is so strong as in three of them a majority considered as justified suicide attacks against the Americans in Iraq. Thin consolation for those who denounce(cancel) a " imperial temptation " and who, as Mexico or Chile, pay a heavy levy to their refusal to support their powerful neighbour in his Iraqi adventure.

Advertisement Towards(As for) the transatlantic relations, it is hardly better. In June, an inquiry led for the German Marshall Fund revealed a fort désamour in the countries of the "old woman" and the "piece of news"("short story") Europe, with a recession(drop) of 7 points in the note given by the pooled to " American friend " (57 against 64 on a scale(ladder) from 0 to 100). Nothing very new in France. But surprising in Great Britain, cousin of the United States, where the Prime Minister, for a long time considered as the "poodle" of the American presidents, clearly distanced oneself. Diagnosis of Madeleine Albright, ex-State Secretary of Bill Clinton: the "partnership" gave up the place(square) to the "rivalry".

In certain countries, little suspect up to here of hostility, the refusal(discharge) of the Uncle Sam reaches(affects) summits. " During my last one turned(shot) in Germany, the public had so gone back up(so raised) against the United States which I had to cross(spend) of prosecutor's role to that of the lawyer(avocado) ", tells the American sociologist Michael Mann, the author of a firebrand, " the inconsistent Empire ", crowned better political book besides the Rhine. After Donald Rumsfeld's threats - " those who are not with us are against us "-, the war in Iraq terminated fifty years of atlantisme blazing during which one(which) the German international politics(policy) was subordinated to that of the United States. Berlin "definitively became emancipated", as says the chancellor Gerhard Schröder. The last spectacular break, Egypt, main beneficiary of the American help, is not any more a sure ally: 98 % of his(her) population has an unfavourable perception(collection) of the United States.
The causes of this hardening, which saves(spares) only Russia (Poutin associates without mood Iraq and Chechnya, are in hiding of Islamist revolt) and Iran (denounced(cancelled,given up) by Bush as a " State hooligan ", member(limb) of the " axis of the Evil ", but the population of which remains proAmerican), are easy to identify. With the Iraqi invasion and the succession(advent) of a politics(policy) among which pillars(props) (superiority of the force on the right(law), unilatéralisme, refusal of the international commitments, the preventive war) turn(shoot) the back just like an opened nation, attentive to the others, the antiAmericanism, formerly limited to elites became more radical and globalized. " The Americans spread(displayed) in Iraq a little common combination(overall) of limited activism and unlimited incompetence, arousing in the Arabic world and beyond a massive refusal(discharge). One and a half year later, in the initial grievances - unilatéralisme and illegality of the Iraqi invasion - director of the Foundation for the strategic Studies, on bottom of persevering quarrel with " old Europe ", implanting of the conflict is added, according to François Heisbourg. " " Today, he explains, we see clearly that the war of Iraq was an enormous strategic fault, opening new sources(springs) of recruitment and giving to the terrorists of new motives to act in the most violent forms. "

In a world where the representations play a determining role, the image of America liberator transformed in occupying power and executioner gave of the grain(bead) to grind to the opponents of the star-spangled banner. What the historian Philippe Roger so summarizes: " after the historic error on the nature of the Vietnamese uprising, the national revolution and not Korea twice being of use as alibi to the Soviet expansionism, The invasion of Iraq transformed the image of the United States with the eyes of the international opinion, resuscitated the myth of the empire American and globalized the antiAmericanism. "
" America is not popular? Swaggerer Charles Krauthammer, editorial writer in "Washington Post". Well then? Does she(it) really need the being? We are one pip(top) [we are the first ones], it is necessary to assume. " More qualified, Timothy McNulty, one the oil of " Chicago Tribune ", explains: " Bush throws(plans) the United States the image of an empire arrogant, selfish, inequitable and worked by the fear. The world hates the Americans. They make fun of it. Separated by two oceans, the isolationism does not frighten them. "
The American hyperpower waterproof(impervious) to the criticisms(critics) of the weak or those who oppose to his(her,its) force? This thesis, developed by the neoconservatives(neocurators) with forms there a call(appeal) to the isolationism, count number of supporters. " Judging his(her,its) too expensive presence in Iraq in men(people), silver, in prestige, analyze the historian Stanley Hoffmann, America can be tried to keep(guard) its resources to resolve its internal problems, as it him(her,it) matched the post-wilsonienne depression of 1919. And to send to walk once for all the thankless which she wanted "to free(" release) " from a threat and which(who) fire him(her) above. " Perfectly conceivable, but absurd. Because, in the management of its interests economic as in its role of gendarme of the world, the hyperpower cannot make only rider. Even with a military budget equal to that of 15 following ones, his(her) army is incapable to reassure Iraq and she wishes officially the help(assistant) of allies that she spread(pushed aside) yesterday even in the pretext that henceforth only " the mission made the coalition ". Energivorace, his(her,its) economy cannot live either without the oil(petroleum) of the Middle East or Africa. And, today, to reunite the moderate in his(her,its) "model" of democracy against "extremists" contaminated by the terrorism, the American crusaders less need kicked missionaries than this aura, this attraction of which the ascent of the antiAmericanism deprives them.
" Historically, the isolationism corresponds only to a very short period of America, observes François Heisbourg. The United States always considered that their interests - raw materials, big walked(worked) - postulated(applied) a large-scale foreign policy as well as a good image. Their force is bound(connected) to their capacity to animate(stimulate) permanent alliances, slowing down their power. It is not thus their interest to be hated. " " Abroad, explains more frankly Jeffrey Garten, dean of the institute of management of Yale, the fear, the one that throws(plans) the American administration by developing an obsidionale psychosis (a phobia of besieged), is terrible for the business(cases). "

Can we, from then on, hope that the gratitude(recognition) of the interdependence and the acceptance of the constraints which keep pace with the world leadership will stop not triumphing? " The problem, it is because nobody in the current American Establishment is ready to accept him(it) ", Stanley Hoffmann sighs. By appearing at the republican agreement as a rebel, ready as Reagan to crease(offend) the international sensibilities to defend(forbid) the American interests, also justifying each of the decisions taken since September, 2001, the leader of the White House prepares logically a new wave of antiAmericanism. And a new toughening. To where he can damage the image of the United States abroad without activating(starting) in return a reaction of his own fellow countrymen? "

LINK here

 

[padisha emperor]

posted by dilloduck

Whats tour point here dish-----that some french dude hates bush? we know that!
oh ya
4- English -All posts will be made in the English language. Non English posts will be deleted.

first : i know this rule, it's why I translate with the site's translator these text....where do you see french ? in the link? I can't translate all, dear. And the link is not a message.


For your first sentence : you only see the fact that the author doesn't like bush...
Read it again, you'll see that some things are crazy, are dumbs.
Bush will have all the judges with him, the Suprem Court....like a dictator.
He wants to do a "conservative revolution", but it is not an evolution, it is a withdraw.

 

[dilloduck]

From the "Nouvel Observateur"

"The antiAmericanism progresses all around the world

The fireman pyromaniac of the hatred Indifferent to the hostility which it arouses, Bush believes that he can Americanize the world without globalizing America. In case of re-election, the country risks to pay dearly this arrogance

Never the antiAmericanism went as well. Our " sweet power ", this capacity of America to be convinced and to be seduced in a peaceful way, is in free-fall, asserts in Harvard Joseph Nye, a dean of the Kennedy School (American ENA) and the inventor of this concept of " soft power ". Abroad, the unpopularity of our politics(policy) is for the top. " " Everybody hates us ", sighs, the wild middle, the melancholic middle, Kurt Vonnegut, one of the biggest contemporary American novelists. " When America pursues France of its vengeance, the whole world is in the balcony. And this time, for the whole world, it is America, not France, which lost the head. At the time of the McCarthyism, Sartre accused America To have become crazy. Today, he indeed has to laugh in his grave ", explains the historian Tony Judt, the specialist of the relations Europe-USA.
Of the annoyance in the confrontation, the report of the difference in the declared hatred, inquiries show the scale of the degradation of the image of the United States in the world. In March, a little bit before the attacks(attempts) of Madrid, a poll(survey) realized by the Pew Research Center revealed that 82 % of the Germans, 78 % of the French people and 58 % of the British judged the little reliable Americans. In Morocco, in Germany, in Turkey, 65 % of people asked considered that the main objective of the United States was not the fight(wrestling) against the terrorism but the seizure by the oil(petroleum) or the world hegemony. In the Moslem countries, the refusal(discharge) of the United States is so strong as in three of them a majority considered as justified suicide attacks against the Americans in Iraq. Thin consolation for those who denounce(cancel) a " imperial temptation " and who, as Mexico or Chile, pay a heavy levy to their refusal to support their powerful neighbour in his Iraqi adventure.

Advertisement Towards(As for) the transatlantic relations, it is hardly better. In June, an inquiry led for the German Marshall Fund revealed a fort désamour in the countries of the "old woman" and the "piece of news"("short story") Europe, with a recession(drop) of 7 points in the note given by the pooled to " American friend " (57 against 64 on a scale(ladder) from 0 to 100). Nothing very new in France. But surprising in Great Britain, cousin of the United States, where the Prime Minister, for a long time considered as the "poodle" of the American presidents, clearly distanced oneself. Diagnosis of Madeleine Albright, ex-State Secretary of Bill Clinton: the "partnership" gave up the place(square) to the "rivalry".

In certain countries, little suspect up to here of hostility, the refusal(discharge) of the Uncle Sam reaches(affects) summits. " During my last one turned(shot) in Germany, the public had so gone back up(so raised) against the United States which I had to cross(spend) of prosecutor's role to that of the lawyer(avocado) ", tells the American sociologist Michael Mann, the author of a firebrand, " the inconsistent Empire ", crowned better political book besides the Rhine. After Donald Rumsfeld's threats - " those who are not with us are against us "-, the war in Iraq terminated fifty years of atlantisme blazing during which one(which) the German international politics(policy) was subordinated to that of the United States. Berlin "definitively became emancipated", as says the chancellor Gerhard Schröder. The last spectacular break, Egypt, main beneficiary of the American help, is not any more a sure ally: 98 % of his(her) population has an unfavourable perception(collection) of the United States.
The causes of this hardening, which saves(spares) only Russia (Poutin associates without mood Iraq and Chechnya, are in hiding of Islamist revolt) and Iran (denounced(cancelled,given up) by Bush as a " State hooligan ", member(limb) of the " axis of the Evil ", but the population of which remains proAmerican), are easy to identify. With the Iraqi invasion and the succession(advent) of a politics(policy) among which pillars(props) (superiority of the force on the right(law), unilatéralisme, refusal of the international commitments, the preventive war) turn(shoot) the back just like an opened nation, attentive to the others, the antiAmericanism, formerly limited to elites became more radical and globalized. " The Americans spread(displayed) in Iraq a little common combination(overall) of limited activism and unlimited incompetence, arousing in the Arabic world and beyond a massive refusal(discharge). One and a half year later, in the initial grievances - unilatéralisme and illegality of the Iraqi invasion - director of the Foundation for the strategic Studies, on bottom of persevering quarrel with " old Europe ", implanting of the conflict is added, according to François Heisbourg. " " Today, he explains, we see clearly that the war of Iraq was an enormous strategic fault, opening new sources(springs) of recruitment and giving to the terrorists of new motives to act in the most violent forms. "

In a world where the representations play a determining role, the image of America liberator transformed in occupying power and executioner gave of the grain(bead) to grind to the opponents of the star-spangled banner. What the historian Philippe Roger so summarizes: " after the historic error on the nature of the Vietnamese uprising, the national revolution and not Korea twice being of use as alibi to the Soviet expansionism, The invasion of Iraq transformed the image of the United States with the eyes of the international opinion, resuscitated the myth of the empire American and globalized the antiAmericanism. "
" America is not popular? Swaggerer Charles Krauthammer, editorial writer in "Washington Post". Well then? Does she(it) really need the being? We are one pip(top) [we are the first ones], it is necessary to assume. " More qualified, Timothy McNulty, one the oil of " Chicago Tribune ", explains: " Bush throws(plans) the United States the image of an empire arrogant, selfish, inequitable and worked by the fear. The world hates the Americans. They make fun of it. Separated by two oceans, the isolationism does not frighten them. "
The American hyperpower waterproof(impervious) to the criticisms(critics) of the weak or those who oppose to his(her,its) force? This thesis, developed by the neoconservatives(neocurators) with forms there a call(appeal) to the isolationism, count number of supporters. " Judging his(her,its) too expensive presence in Iraq in men(people), silver, in prestige, analyze the historian Stanley Hoffmann, America can be tried to keep(guard) its resources to resolve its internal problems, as it him(her,it) matched the post-wilsonienne depression of 1919. And to send to walk once for all the thankless which she wanted "to free(" release) " from a threat and which(who) fire him(her) above. " Perfectly conceivable, but absurd. Because, in the management of its interests economic as in its role of gendarme of the world, the hyperpower cannot make only rider. Even with a military budget equal to that of 15 following ones, his(her) army is incapable to reassure Iraq and she wishes officially the help(assistant) of allies that she spread(pushed aside) yesterday even in the pretext that henceforth only " the mission made the coalition ". Energivorace, his(her,its) economy cannot live either without the oil(petroleum) of the Middle East or Africa. And, today, to reunite the moderate in his(her,its) "model" of democracy against "extremists" contaminated by the terrorism, the American crusaders less need kicked missionaries than this aura, this attraction of which the ascent of the antiAmericanism deprives them.
" Historically, the isolationism corresponds only to a very short period of America, observes François Heisbourg. The United States always considered that their interests - raw materials, big walked(worked) - postulated(applied) a large-scale foreign policy as well as a good image. Their force is bound(connected) to their capacity to animate(stimulate) permanent alliances, slowing down their power. It is not thus their interest to be hated. " " Abroad, explains more frankly Jeffrey Garten, dean of the institute of management of Yale, the fear, the one that throws(plans) the American administration by developing an obsidionale psychosis (a phobia of besieged), is terrible for the business(cases). "

Can we, from then on, hope that the gratitude(recognition) of the interdependence and the acceptance of the constraints which keep pace with the world leadership will stop not triumphing? " The problem, it is because nobody in the current American Establishment is ready to accept him(it) ", Stanley Hoffmann sighs. By appearing at the republican agreement as a rebel, ready as Reagan to crease(offend) the international sensibilities to defend(forbid) the American interests, also justifying each of the decisions taken since September, 2001, the leader of the White House prepares logically a new wave of antiAmericanism. And a new toughening. To where he can damage the image of the United States abroad without activating(starting) in return a reaction of his own fellow countrymen? "

LINK here

your translation is impossible to understand and you links are in French--quit wasting our time with this crap-----just tell us what your point is !!

 

[MtnBiker]

Isn't this the Political Races section?

Hey Padisha Emperor can you vote in the US election or can the authors of these rants?

So really it just an opinion piece and considering you opinion cannot be supported by a vote it really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Comrade]

link about this


Why he must leave :
"These people do not rest(base). Do not stop(arrest). Do not blow.

No blowing, and no sucking either.

These people have a leader, George W. Bush, and a program. An outfit next to which Ronald Reagan's reforms make small player:

How can you top defeating the USSR under Reagan, really. Bush will probably never be as big as Reagan, who was the creme de la creme of history makers.

it says something when you ungratefull frogs can't respect Reagan for your French hides, or Chirac refuses to come to his funeral. When Gorbachev shows and the French don't, that really says all there is about France.

A justice colonized by conservative judges, who carry(wear) their religion over the shoulder;

And Ho Chi Mihn says religion is BAD!

a Supreme Court populated with liegemen, to the right quite:

Bush prefers 'His Excellency' in his royal presentations with the court.

a legal system strengthened by Patriot Act of limitation of the liberties in the name of the antiterrorism, which, sees out and developed the muscle, laughs as at a bad luck of the rights of the persons;

And everytime a shahid for Islam goes to jail, Allah kills a kitten.

A " major fiscal reform ", to resume(to take back) the word of Bush's close, where the injustice competes for him(it) in the irresponsible; a partial privatization of the pensions and an appeal always wider in the private for the health insurance;

So you agree, Bush is indeed wider in the privates, yes?

The man can lasso and take down full grown steer in a pinch with all the rope he can throw down.

What scares the French is not the health care in America, they could care less about our national health care. It's that our President has huge sack full of cahones.

A foreign policy led(driven) by a president who " will not try to obtain a permission to defend(forbid) the Americans "

Congress authorized use of force in Iraq, but clearly didn't allow Bush to extend that force to defending Americans. A president who wants to defend America must actually get a constitutional admendment from the entire population.

(dixit Dick Cheney)

Damn Dick, did he go a dixit?

but who has already lost 1000 of his soldiers on the Iraqi ground; a crusade against the terrorism which, although justified in its foundations, is incapable to extirpate the Islamic germ of Al-Qaida and managed of the miracle to encourage its metastases;

We shouldn't fight terror because it makes it stronger. We're doomed for ever ever thinking we could stand up to them. That's the kind of thinking which I find so typical of the EU left now. As weak as you would be with such pathetic defeatism, we don't need them and the bull.

a refusal to involve in the regulation(payment) of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict which returns the peace impossible for the Middle East.

What's the asking price for peace in the middle east these days?

The key financial issue to consider in paying off Arab lust for Jew killing is how long Arab brotherhood with Jews is propped up and when the price goes up on monthly renewal of the purchase terms.

Egypt settled on 2 Billion a year to stop killing Jews. Because Suck ass Carter was all about paying up for peace to stop the war caused by lack of US funding. And he even got a Peace prize for bribing Arab tyrants with our taxes. And the bribed Arab tyrants also got in on the same peace prize!

Bascially nonpayment of US funds causes Arabs to war. Imagine all the Nobel peace prizes for Arab rulers we can deliver, along with a check for a billion plus. Why do we continue to deny peace and fluffy white bunny rabbits for Arab regimes in destroying Isreal. And all this time we just need to pay them as is our duty.

When the rest of the world looks four years of bushisme,

I hope y'all will take some yoga, stop whining, and get over it. Because it's going to be a long for years, and the left is primed for strokes and heart attacks, or even depression and suicide.

it is the balance sheet(assessment) which seems to him(her) appalling: an unprecedented isolation on the world scene(stage);

France and Germany are isolated, the coalition is the 'in crowd', fellahs.

a leadership of unequalled arrogance;

Arrogance is when Chirac refused to come to Reagans funeral, or even send a French delegate, and while he was in the US East Coast and near enough to make an appearance.

a fretful and intolerant religiosity;

France is fretting bullets over Bush's upcoming victory. The left never stopped whining since early 2001. Bush supporters in America, well you can tell who they are... they are cool and relaxed and maintain their convictions despite the Doomsayers on the opposite spectrum, who look ready to climb the walls.

A social and fiscal policy always more inequitable; a company(society) where the number of persons without health insurance reaches(affects) 43 millions (in increase of 5 millions); a total contempt for the environment. But the most worrying is to come.

Jesus, you leftists are total downers. Now why the heck would French people give a flying crap for who in America gets health care?

Honestly, you got us pegged as DOOMED. And everything we do now is wrong. Consistently wrong.

Whether it is in economy (see p. 20), company(society) (p. 12), or in international politics(policy) (p. 26), George W. Bush's conservative revolution is far from being finished. Will his(her) partisans moreover be ever satisfied? We can rely on the zeal of missionary of the ideologists of the White House not to stop(arrest) in the middle of the ford.

Bush is demonstrating the true qualities of leadership, maintaining his principles and convictions to pursue the war in a way many Amercians feels is in our interests.

The idea about GWB winning the election and succeeding in Iraq is scary to you. You can't bank on America losing this one and offer 'helpfull' advice. Well, not advice, really, you all offer portents of DOOM. And you want to be proven right.

It is indeed it who(which) terrifies half of the United States and who worries, in France and in the world, the friends about the biggest of the democracies.

The Kerry crowd are indeed terrified. The thought we won't see French divisions arrive in Iraq once Kerry wins was already quite foolish before. When Kerry loses France if off the hook and can still do nothing but undermine us.

Contrary to the election of 2000, when certain Greens banked cynically on Bush's victory to give a boost to their troops, there is not any more today than a handle of partisans of Ralph Nader to see in this election that a political event. Advertisement The majority of the Americans, in a camp as in the other one, understood well the stake in this confrontation not as the others: it is, more than ever, about a choice of society."

An easy choice for me. And whatever stakes there are I assume France and their eternal friendship is not part of the important aspects.

from the website of the "nouvel observateur". I use the translator of the site. So, when some words are in (), you have to choice between this one and the before word for the good sense.

Are the French really eating this kind of reporting up over there?

The French have to know they will likely lose this one and end up on the wrong side of history... yet again.

Blaming the US is your national past time. And even if this means you go to the bitter end and can't get over losing Saddam, you will have four years to sit it out and deal.

This seething and raging is going to turn into a health epidemic in the EU with all the heart attacks, strokes, and suicides a Bush victory will bring on.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm getting more than just a little tired of the pretentious, pompous, arrogant french telling us that "Bush has to go".

To hell with your spineless, devious, underhanded, corrupt and amoral government.

And to hell with your opinions. You have not earned the right to shine an American's shoes, much less tell us how to run our country.

Speak up when someone blows three thousand frenchmen to hell. Then your opinion might carry a little more weight.

 

[Comrade]

I'm getting more than just a little tired of the pretentious, pompous, arrogant french telling us that "Bush has to go".

To hell with your spineless, devious, underhanded, corrupt and amoral government.

And to hell with your opinions. You have not earned the right to shine an American's shoes, much less tell us how to run our country.

Speak up when someone blows three thousand frenchmen to hell. Then your opinion might carry a little more weigth.

I'd have to ask around the red light district, but I bet a few might have blown three throusand Frenchmen.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Any worthless little frenchman that happens to read this, I'd like a response to something. Since your opinion about the re-election of President Bush is pointless because you aren't American, don't live in or near the U.S., and can't vote, why don't you share your opinion on something that pertains to you.

What do you think about France's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal? Do you support your government illegally lining it's pockets while also putting millions of dollars in the pocket of a murderous dictator? Have you gone to French message boards and given reasons for Chirac to leave? Just curious.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'd have to ask around the red light district, but I bet a few might have blown three throusand Frenchmen.

Oh, now that was a very undignified and uncouth remark.

But . . . . :

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[no1tovote4]

If you want to see true isolation on the world stage vote in Kerry. He insults our allies directly by calling them bribed and coerced, he denies their very existence by saying we work unilaterally, he insults the interim government in the very country he voted to send us to. If I were a leader of a country in the Coalition and the US voted this jerk in, the first step would be to leave. I would have no part of a "leader" that would say I was bribed and coerced into sending young people to die.

 

[musicman]

Any worthless little frenchman that happens to read this, I'd like a response to something. Since your opinion about the re-election of President Bush is pointless because you aren't American, don't live in or near the U.S., and can't vote, why don't you share your opinion on something that pertains to you.

What do you think about France's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal? Do you support your government illegally lining it's pockets while also putting millions of dollars in the pocket of a murderous dictator? Have you gone to French message boards and given reasons for Chirac to leave? Just curious.

These are fair questions, Pierre. I wouldn't mind hearing the answers myself. What the hell - let's ALL go on a self-improvement kick!

 

[padisha emperor]

For all those say that I shouldn't care about this election : i say : you are close minded, and don't accept the opposition, the contestations...
This election doesn't concern only the USA, but the WORLD : USA is the mightiest country. So his leader's election is really important. And now, with Bush.....it is one of the most important US election for Europe.
We are very concerned.
THe first article speak of Bush.

the second of his politic projects. what he wishes.

the third, of the anti-americanism in the world.

Only to show o you that if he would be reelected, USA would be more and more hated. Not because people hate the US citizens. but they hate Bush.


posted by Sir Evil :

Why Padisha should Leave

Apparently he does not realize that this is a US message board, not a French message board! does anyone know how to say about what he has to say?

He is very good at posting his Anti - American crap, but he is yet to reply to my post!

http://usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12115


We are here for good open debates and discussion, your typical postings just dont fit that philosophy! Time to shape up or ship out with your buddy Ali!!

I answer for the first sentence.
for the last, about the "open debates"....I or Ali posted messages, we puted links, and lots of users insults us.
You are anti-french from your hair to your feet nails. And you say everything about France, above all stupid and false things.

Here, I got links, I only puted that because I wanted that you know whta is then feeling in the rest of the world (outside the USA) and that Bush wantes to realize crzazy things, really bad.


Last thing who will prove I say the truth about this "open debates" : sme users are US citizen but they don't share your opinion, and are not for Bush : you don't listen to them, and insult them ...for an open debate......

These articles disturbed you.
"Veritas odium parit".


(oh, comrade : "dixit" is latin : it means "says".......)

 

[dilloduck]

For all those say that I shouldn't care about this election : i say : you are close minded, and don't accept the opposition, the contestations...
This election doesn't concern only the USA, but the WORLD : USA is the mightiest country. So his leader's election is really important. And now, with Bush.....it is one of the most important US election for Europe.
We are very concerned.
THe first article speak of Bush.

the second of his politic projects. what he wishes.

the third, of the anti-americanism in the world.

Only to show o you that if he would be reelected, USA would be more and more hated. Not because people hate the US citizens. but they hate Bush.


posted by Sir Evil :

I answer for the first sentence.
for the last, about the "open debates"....I or Ali posted messages, we puted links, and lots of users insults us.
You are anti-french from your hair to your feet nails. And you say everything about France, above all stupid and false things.

Here, I got links, I only puted that because I wanted that you know whta is then feeling in the rest of the world (outside the USA) and that Bush wantes to realize crzazy things, really bad.


Last thing who will prove I say the truth about this "open debates" : sme users are US citizen but they don't share your opinion, and are not for Bush : you don't listen to them, and insult them ...for an open debate......

These articles disturbed you.
"Veritas odium parit".


(oh, comrade : "dixit" is latin : it means "says".......)

How will the re-election of Bush hurt France?

 

[padisha emperor]

S.E., why MY LINKS are unworthy and YOURS are worthy ? it is a dictatorship ?

You think that they are unworthy because they hurt you.

But they are taken from a french weekly. A great national newspaper.
On the website you can read lot of things about the elctions of USA. And these 3 articlmes were published and now arer online.

What do you want ? a link from the White House ? ........

Your link have not more worth.
But I accept them. Why don't you accept that ? the fact that the world hates Bush, and then the USA, that Bush wants to do stupid and crazy things, only for the richer...???


dilloduck :

How will the re-election of Bush hurt France?

me

This election doesn't concern only the USA, but the WORLD : USA is the mightiest country. So his leader's election is really important. And now, with Bush.....it is one of the most important US election for Europe.
We are very concerned.

Bush is dumb, and if you read the second and first articles, you'll see his programm, his "conservative revolution"'.....
Kerry is more clever. i prefer Kerry. For France, Kerry would be best, because he wants that the relation between the 2 states are best.
And I don't like Bush, he did lots of stupid things since 2000. so.......

 

[MtnBiker]

For all those say that I shouldn't care about this election : i say : you are close minded, ...

USA is the mightiest country.

Padisha, you can care about this election all you want. However the fact of the matter is what your opinion really has no meaning to this election. You cannot support your opinion with a vote in our country.

You say the USA is the mightiest country in the world, well we certianly did not become that way or continue to be the mightiest by follow the opinions and wishes of socialist countries. It may be your wish that we diminish ourselves in the world status to your country's level but its just not going to happen.