Bush doing a 180º with Europe

[spillmind]

L.A. Times, Iraq "Occupation" Watch? Dubious sources to say the least.

The 1st one I can give some credence to.

Ok lets say a draft happens, what is wrong with required military service by young men?

i guess these topics always go back to the same crux of the same arguement.
i'm not going to debate the draft here, just trying to mindful that staffing simply cannot continue at current rates. also pointing out that money for this huge effort is still waning, and the dollar is still falling.

i don't have time to google and dig for 1/2 hour to find a credible by your standards source. there really isn't much argument that the troop needs are reaching the point where they are stretched too thin. there really isn't much argument about the deficit increasing and the money for the war in iraq is running out. unless i've got it wrong.

so, for the record, you are saying that

a) the troop level is fine and we don't have to worry about staffing

b) the funding of the war is not an issue, and it shouldn't be a problem to finance this war free standing without international help

and finally,

c) bush is in europe to offer his services to the people of europe. he is actually being nice to them and they should gratefully accept whatever he proposes

forgive me for not fully addressing your other questions. it is merely to try and keep focus on the points i wanted to stress.

 

[spillmind]

I have to admit that I am disappointed by the fact that George Bush decided to be a politician instead of a leader. I gives me the ass that he is sitting side-by-side with that french pig Chirac instead of giving that bastard the finger.

But as much as I may bitch about that, it's still better than having kerry in the White House. At least Bush is on his feet while talking to Chirac. Kerry would be on his knees.

But once again you left wing buttwipes show your true colors. This is more or less what you said you wanted. But now instead of encouraging the President to do things "your" way, you simply seize the opportunity to once again point and giggle.

You people are a truly pathetic and disgusting bunch. Why are you still here and not in Canada?

i love the way it's always turned around, and it's always the LEFT in the wrong. you've got to admit, you are one sided and frighteningly partisan.

more insults because what i say is true, and it's what i've been saying all along. take out your anger of whatever issues you have on the left because it's easy.

the fact of the matter is bush is soliciting help from the people you slam day in and day out and it's making your head hurt

 

[Avatar4321]

bush is in europe trying to court the very people that he shunned, and that his followers condemn day in and day out.

Trying to rewrite history? President Bush never shunned Europe. France and Germany are the ones who turned their back on us. Meanwhile the rest of Europe was on board with Iraq.

looks like the 'libs' were right about the US not being able to sustain its warring efforts alone.

Wait, he is trying to get them to help is fight the war in Iraq? News to me. Sure looked like he was working on other aspects of redefining the middle east politically. There was more focus on the condmenation of Syria and negociations with Iran.

Nice attempt at spin, too bad the facts just dont support you.

 

[spillmind]

Ummm, we haven't been going it alone, perhaps you just didn't notice.


As I recall it, it was them who shunned us! If it weren't for the libs crying out about public relations and image I don't think they would find this all too abnormal.


Rediculous, please explain? Iran is not seeking anything peaceful and if you believe that you are pretty naive!





No I don't see it as a flip flop and who here has ever claimed that Bush was perfection? This is just something for you to rant about, if anything you are not seeing your own flip flop taking place here. First the libs were crying about going it alone, no U.N. support, now you want to condemn the man for doing what it was you were first crying about!

come one Sir E, the coalition is that of those mostly upon american trade for financial survival. britain wants out ASAP, and it's no secret. when we make up 90% of the effort, that's not much of a coalition, IMO.

they shunned us because we rushed to war. they didn't agree with our methodology. you wish to paint all those who oppose in the same color as you do france in respects to the shady oil dealings. and after all, iraq did switch to trading all their oil in euros in 2000-2001. this was also a factor.
and it's simply not fair and not the case for those opposed to the methodology and reasoning of the war in iraq.

he's not perfect, hell, he's not even half decent. but it is HE who initiated the war on terror and iraq, and HE who had the harsh words and poor foreign relations team. america partakes in shady oil deals with 2nd and third world governments all over the world. just because france did and they aren't us, screw them?

this whole easier to ask forgiveness than permission crap is irresponsible and certainly affects any country's standing in the international light even if it's the good ol US of A.

europe and half of america saw this crap coming a mile away. it's predictable, and depressing at the same time.

 

[Avatar4321]

come one Sir E, the coalition is that of those mostly upon american trade for financial survival. britain wants out ASAP, and it's no secret. when we make up 90% of the effort, that's not much of a coalition, IMO.

they shunned us because we rushed to war. they didn't agree with our methodology. you wish to paint all those who oppose in the same color as you do france in respects to the shady oil dealings. and after all, iraq did switch to trading all their oil in euros in 2000-2001. this was also a factor.
and it's simply not fair and not the case for those opposed to the methodology and reasoning of the war in iraq.

he's not perfect, hell, he's not even half decent. but it is HE who initiated the war on terror and iraq, and HE who had the harsh words and poor foreign relations team. america partakes in shady oil deals with 2nd and third world governments all over the world. just because france did and they aren't us, screw them?

this whole easier to ask forgiveness than permission crap is irresponsible and certainly affects any country's standing in the international light even if it's the good ol US of A.

europe and half of america saw this crap coming a mile away. it's predictable, and depressing at the same time.

I dont know how you can claim to be honest with yourself and still be spouting off this same BS that wasnt true when we started the war and still isnt true.

The President initiated the war on terror? Silly me i thought Al Queda did when the crashed a couple planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Dont tell me you forgot that already?

As for the war on Iraq, Saddam started this back in the 90s when he invaded Kuwait. He refused to uphold his end of the ceasefire agreement and has been supporting terrorism so the war is still on.

We used diplomatic means to get France and Germany on board for a long period of time. They decided that their corrupt oil dealings were more important than liberating the Iraqis. Yet somehow we chased them away. We show leadership and thats somehow bad because a few European "Powers" (And i use that word loosely) decided to put their bank accounts above human life. Again i dont know how you people look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[spillmind]

I dont know how you can claim to be honest with yourself and still be spouting off this same BS that wasnt true when we started the war and still isnt true.

The President initiated the war on terror? Silly me i thought Al Queda did when the crashed a couple planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Dont tell me you forgot that already?

As for the war on Iraq, Saddam started this back in the 90s when he invaded Kuwait. He refused to uphold his end of the ceasefire agreement and has been supporting terrorism so the war is still on.

We used diplomatic means to get France and Germany on board for a long period of time. They decided that their corrupt oil dealings were more important than liberating the Iraqis. Yet somehow we chased them away. We show leadership and thats somehow bad because a few European "Powers" (And i use that word loosely) decided to put their bank accounts above human life. Again i dont know how you people look at yourself in the mirror.

oh yeah, silly me, i forgot all the SAUDIS were directly on saddam's payroll. now unless you know they were and have proof of that, trying to link 9/11 the invasion of iraq is ludicrous at best. but i digress. i'm going to try and keep this thread on topic.

as far as the war on terror goes, if that is your reasoning (these days, it used to be WMD, but we all know how that reason was quickly cast aside), it's been a colossal failure. terrorists numbers against america are growing every day, fueled by the happenings of the iraq war.

again, until you can say that america has NEVER participated in corrupt oil dealing, say in nigeria for example, you are simply calling the kettle black and being amazingly short sided and partisan about that subject.

bank account in front of people's lives? i'll get to SEs post about me reaching, but you've failed to address anything i said about troop staffing and the budget and why bush is shaking your hated chirac's hand recently, so you leave nothing of substance for me to address.

i like what i see in the mirror. i sleep well at night. thank you for your concern.

 

[manu1959]

unless you are suffering from serious short term memory loss, the go it alone policy (save for the coalition of the trade agreements), is pretty much up a creek without a paddle, since we are running out of money, the dollar is stil falling, and the troop levels will not be able to maintain minimun staffing levels into 2006.

bush is in europe trying to court the very people that he shunned, and that his followers condemn day in and day out. looks like the 'libs' were right about the US not being able to sustain its warring efforts alone.

and now today, he's telling europe that mention of his plans of attacking iran are simply 'ridiculous'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22/bush.iran.ap/index.html

yeah, well, hey dubya, we've heard that song and dance before:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/23/140128.shtml

is this a flip or a flop? i need to keep in mind that bush never lies, and he is always morally right on the money. the cognitive dissonance is once again getting the better of me

wow i figured you all would be happy that he took kerry's advice and extended an olive branch to europe and built a coalition of the major european allies....funny johnny and teddy said he would not be able to do this

 

[spillmind]

Well this is you first mistake Spilly, how on earth did we rush to war? The Iraq issue has been on the table prior to the Bush administration taking office!
We were indeed shunned by the europeans but true to word not nearly as badly as France. Are you clumping us in with France in shady dealings? are we there once again only for the oil?



No he's not perfect, who said so and what president has been? I do think he is decent, I do think he is doing a considerable better job with the circumstances facing us today. YES, he initiated a war on terror, didn't you think it was necessary? Problem with your thinking is hat these things should be done and over with, that's not gonna happen! We will be at war with terror for sometime to come so you better get used to it. You want to let the radicals roost a little longer in their plans to create the destruction of America be my guest, but in my opinion Bush is doing the right thing looking to take it out before it spreads and that's why the euro weenies need to wake up!!



What crap do you speak of that you saw coming a mile away? hell if you are that good at prediciting you better get yourself a new job! You think this is depressing? Could you imagine if we were still taking the appeasement route?
now that my friend would be showing some very depressing images of the world today!

don't be angry at me sir e! i don't have as much time as i once did. things are very tight at work, and i find myself taking a lot of work home most nights. :Þ

i really would like to focus on the points that i have brought up, and not go over many issues we have already beat into the ground. you think bush took his time, i don't. we can agree to disagree on that for now.

and yes, the USA is guilty of a number of things like political coups, oil deals with governments that leave the people of these countries out in the cold.
if you really don't believe me, i'll start another thread this week and we can debate that there

IMHO, i think the guy epitomizes the underlying problems in our government around secrecy, moral hypocrisy, and corruption. mind you, kerry was every bit as corrupt as bush. both equally disgusting.

the next line is all fine and good, but Porter J. Goss just said that the war in iraq is not stymieing terror, but in fact fueling it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28876-2005Feb16?language=printer

again, if the war in iraq was all about the war on terror, it's been a failure. still, this is not a point i was trying to address with my initial post.

the appeasement route?! what appeasement? yes, please tell us what the world would be like today from your perspective if saddam had been approached a different way. in another thread of course

so i guess everyone agrees with me then that troop staffing level will be insufficient in the coming year or so, and we will not be able to maintain the spending trend that we currently manage. and the reason bush is over there sucking up to the EU is because very soon forces will be stretched too thin and the money will run out.

i know you all hate it, at least some of you do, because i've seen some very hateful posts against the europeans on this board. it must be eating you up that bush isn't really the vigilant cowboy you all made him out to be when push comes to shove. irresponsible management and spending now leaves us in a position- that without the EU's help, the road dorward is going to be incredibly difficult. and if they do help, we owe them a large debt of gratitude for being able to forgive what they feel is a wrong methodology and do what is right for the greater good.

this has nothing to do with appeasement of democrats or doing what the libs wanted all along. some bush supporters demonize both demographics, and i personally feel that is unwarranted and uncalled for.

 

[spillmind]

wow i figured you all would be happy that he took kerry's advice and extended an olive branch to europe and built a coalition of the major european allies....funny johnny and teddy said he would not be able to do this

funny, you guys are starting to sound like a broken record, and still nobody addresses the meat of the points i am trying to focus on.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

funny, you guys are starting to sound like a broken record, and still nobody addresses the meat of the points i am trying to focus on.

No. Your belief in your own previous propaganda is causing you to see POINTS where none exist. Bush never rejected diplomacy with the euros, that's something the left made up.

 

[Avatar4321]

oh yeah, silly me, i forgot all the SAUDIS were directly on saddam's payroll. now unless you know they were and have proof of that, trying to link 9/11 the invasion of iraq is ludicrous at best. but i digress. i'm going to try and keep this thread on topic.

This is exactly what I mean. How do you honestly look yourself in the mirror? You try to argue straw men. Cant deal with the facts?

You claimed the President Initiated the War on terror and the war on Iraq. The war on terror began with terrorists attacked us. President Bush didnt begin it but he is certainly going to finish it. Or atleast finish as much as he can within the next four years.

But rather than dealing with the fact that the war on terror is a response to us being attacked you want to set up straw men to argue. No one ever claimed the saudis involved in 911 were on Saddam's payroll. Do you understand that you trying to argue a point we never made looks incredibly stupid and dishonest?

Ill make this real simple for you. Terrorists attacked us on 911. In response we have decided to eliminate all terrorists and eliminate the governments that support terror in order to liberate the people of those nations and that we might actually have a chance for peace.

Since Saddam supported terrorists (Something that has been established as undeniable fact), we liberated Iraq from his grasps and are now helping the Iraqis have a free society. Because its only through freedom that true peace can occur.

The fact that you are too stupid to figure out how Iraq is part of the war on terror and try to argue against things we never said is not our fault. Face it, this is an losing issue for you.

as far as the war on terror goes, if that is your reasoning (these days, it used to be WMD, but we all know how that reason was quickly cast aside), it's been a colossal failure. terrorists numbers against america are growing every day, fueled by the happenings of the iraq war.

And you base this information on what? Just the fact that you want to do violence against America because of the President doesnt mean everyone else agrees with you.

again, until you can say that america has NEVER participated in corrupt oil dealing, say in nigeria for example, you are simply calling the kettle black and being amazingly short sided and partisan about that subject.

I was unaware that we're part of a scandal to prop up a ruthless dictator that is a threat to world security in order to use a humanitarian program to scam billions of dollars into our economy by violating international economic sanctions. Could you perhaps cite any such occurance?

bank account in front of people's lives? i'll get to SEs post about me reaching, but you've failed to address anything i said about troop staffing and the budget and why bush is shaking your hated chirac's hand recently, so you leave nothing of substance for me to address.

Amazing how you can still be in denial. Ill repeat this again: President Bush has never stopped reaching out to Chirac. Chirac is the one who turned on us and, and now President Bush is going over there because they want to mend the fences.

As for your opinion that we need more troops and our budget cant handle it. Its your opinion. Who cares? Its not based on any real facts.

 

[spillmind]

No. Your belief in your own previous propaganda is causing you to see POINTS where none exist. Bush never rejected diplomacy with the euros, that's something the left made up.

 

[spillmind]

Now of course I'm not angry with you Spilly, jus pointing at that it seems obvious when you have something to say is the only time you stop in for a visit.

Like I said Spill, the Iraq issue was on the table before Bush even took office.
You need to understand the rules changed after 911, He declared his axis of evil before this even took place. Support and unity were big at that time, now it's those of us who are still willing to see Iraq for what it was and what it is now. There is no way in my mind that Iraq should have been left idol!

i'm just curious about your vision of what the world would be like had we taken a different approach to saddam, different from an all out invasion and occupation.

I couldn't even make a close comparison to the two! If you are expecting any politician to take office that is not somewhat shady then you are being naive.

um, bush raised more money than kerry. guess where a lot of that money came from? and both are equally corrupt, i don't care to entertain this tangent anymore, sorry

Geez Spill, how many different ways can the guy be approached before you realize it just ain't working? He spit in the eye of the world for over 12 years! Had he been left alone he would of surely been getting in deep with the terrorist and plotting against the US in my opinion.
sir e, your comment about

this doesn't really tell me about what the world would be like. would there be more or less terrorists?

with all due respect, we still haven't touched on any of the points i brought up initially in this thread.

 

[spillmind]

This is exactly what I mean. How do you honestly look yourself in the mirror? You try to argue straw men. Cant deal with the facts?.

huh?

You claimed the President Initiated the War on terror and the war on Iraq. The war on terror began with terrorists attacked us. President Bush didnt begin it but he is certainly going to finish it. Or atleast finish as much as he can within the next four years.

so if one guy punches you, you go and punch who

you think

are his friends. i see. thanks for clearing this up, mr straw man.

But rather than dealing with the fact that the war on terror is a response to us being attacked you want to set up straw men to argue. No one ever claimed the saudis involved in 911 were on Saddam's payroll. Do you understand that you trying to argue a point we never made looks incredibly stupid and dishonest?

i'm drawing on what you said when you used the attack on 9/11 in the same reply as reasoning for attacking iraq. calling me stupid and dishonest has the opposite of your desired effect, however. your trying to tie the two together for justification is a fabrication. pure and simple.

Ill make this real simple for you. Terrorists attacked us on 911. In response we have decided to eliminate all terrorists and eliminate the governments that support terror in order to liberate the people of those nations and that we might actually have a chance for peace.

Since Saddam supported terrorists (Something that has been established as undeniable fact), we liberated Iraq from his grasps and are now helping the Iraqis have a free society. Because its only through freedom that true peace can occur.

The fact that you are too stupid to figure out how Iraq is part of the war on terror and try to argue against things we never said is not our fault. Face it, this is an losing issue for you.

i'm done with your condensending, insulting posts.

have a nice day.

 

[nakedemperor]

Seems like Bush is paying a lot more attention to Iran's potential nuclear capabilities than North Korea's actual nuclear capabilities. Is Iran more evil than NK? Is it a low-hanging fruit, comparatively? Is it more dangerous, even though it doesn't currently have weapons and delivery systems? Is North Korea worth neglecting because their missles can only reach the Western seaboard? Coughbluestatescough.

Help me out.

 

[manu1959]

unless you are suffering from serious short term memory loss, the go it alone policy (save for the coalition of the trade agreements), is pretty much up a creek without a paddle, since we are running out of money, the dollar is stil falling, and the troop levels will not be able to maintain minimun staffing levels into 2006.

bush is in europe trying to court the very people that he shunned, and that his followers condemn day in and day out. looks like the 'libs' were right about the US not being able to sustain its warring efforts alone.

and now today, he's telling europe that mention of his plans of attacking iran are simply 'ridiculous'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22/bush.iran.ap/index.html

yeah, well, hey dubya, we've heard that song and dance before:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/23/140128.shtml

is this a flip or a flop? i need to keep in mind that bush never lies, and he is always morally right on the money. the cognitive dissonance is once again getting the better of me

the meat of your point?

i see nothing here but grandstanding, chest thumping and self congradulation with a bit of bush bashing....

what exactly is your point?

 

[manu1959]

Seems like Bush is paying a lot more attention to Iran's potential nuclear capabilities than North Korea's actual nuclear capabilities. Is Iran more evil than NK? Is it a low-hanging fruit, comparatively? Is it more dangerous, even though it doesn't currently have weapons and delivery systems? Is North Korea worth neglecting because their missles can only reach the Western seaboard? Coughbluestatescough.

Help me out.

north korea is a creation of china, bush is holding china accountable

 

[manu1959]

i'm just curious about your vision of what the world would be like had we taken a different approach to saddam, different from an all out invasion and occupation.
this doesn't really tell me about what the world would be like. would there be more or less terrorists?

iraq would be the same as it was before the invasion

saddam would be in power, getting rich on oil for food instead of buying food for his people, he would be writting checks to hamas' suicide bombers and harbouring the al queda operatives that fled afganistan to iraq

france germany china and russia would be getting rich on oil for food and continuing to sell weapons systems to iraq all in violation of the UN embargo

the UN would continue to pass resoltuion to do something yet do nothing

oday an cosay would raping women, beating soccer players and feeding whomever, feet first into wood chippers

the left would be complaing about the human rights problems in iraq and begging the neocons to do something about it

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems like Bush is paying a lot more attention to Iran's potential nuclear capabilities than North Korea's actual nuclear capabilities. Is Iran more evil than NK? Is it a low-hanging fruit, comparatively? Is it more dangerous, even though it doesn't currently have weapons and delivery systems? Is North Korea worth neglecting because their missles can only reach the Western seaboard? Coughbluestatescough.

Help me out.

Well we cant do anything to prevent North Korea from obtaining Nuclear weapons. they already have one. So its alot smarter to work on Iran and take care of that threat before they have nuclear weapons. If we dealt with North Korea first, Iran could have nuclear weapons before we finish. By dealing with Iran first, North Korea will still have nuclear weapons so nothing has changed. Also by dealing with Iran first we put more pressure on the North Koreans. They will not use nuclear weapons because if they did the fallout would hit China and North Korea would cease to exist in response. They are just trying to bargain for power with them. The more we are willing take on renegade regimes the stronger our position will be with the North Koreans.

Also i disagree that we are neglecting North Korea. alot of stuff is going on behind the scenes.

 

[spillmind]

the meat of your point?

i see nothing here but grandstanding, chest thumping and self congradulation with a bit of bush bashing....

what exactly is your point?

a) bush is LYING about not wanting to invade iran, like he LIED about not having any plans to invade iraq, simply repeating his behavior.

b) we have neither the funds nor the manpower to invade iran, let alone maintain the occupation in iraq.

c) bush is now sucking up to europe because he cannot do the cowboy song and dance anymore, the selections are over, and his advisors have shown him the numbers and given him (sound) advice to solicit help from the EU because we cannot continue alone as we have so far.

where is my chest thumping and my bush bashing? that i find it all predictable and amusing that he's rubbing elbows with people you love to bash rubbing you the wrong way?