The Guardian: Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Or do you think Bush's international popularity is comparable with Clinton's?

I certainly hope not, Bush has put America's interests ahead of the interests of other nations while Clinton did the exact opposite.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
National debt at 37% of GNP? Tsk. Newbs.

The National Debt at over 37 % of GNP is bad new and is why the Euro has more value than the dollar right now. China is remove the peg with the dollar to than basket of Asian currently and the Euro. The interest we pay on borrow money will go up as our percent of debt to GNP go up.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


The National Debt at over 37 % of GNP is bad new and is why the Euro has more value than the dollar right now.

The EU 15 had an average national debt of about 64% of GDP in 2002. Belgium and Italy had over 100%, has had Japan. The raw relative national debt is not your problem.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In the rest of the world the hatred for Clinton wasn't mainstream, except in the places against which he directly went to war (Serbia for example).

Today, the hatred for Bush is an ordinary perk of all mainstream left parties (even in the US), and a great many right-wingers also hate Bush. In non-American political landscapes, the hatred for Bush is mainstream. The hatred for Clintonwasn't.

Or do you think Bush's international popularity is comparable with Clinton's?

Spiffor, name me a time when a Republican president was not hated by the left?

[Chemical Ollie]

I can't speak for the left, but Reagan was not hated by the right, quite the contrary. Bush is to some extent.

And if you look at Reagans actions, he was a terrorist appeaser. He left Lebanon.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I can't speak for the left, but Reagan was not hated by the right, quite the contrary. Bush is to some extent.

And if you look at Reagans actions, he was a terrorist appeaser. He left Lebanon.

In a way yes and in a way no. He accomplished his mission, protect the PLO, then left. Unfortunately, while the US forces were there, they began to intervene in the civil war, which was not the reason they were there in the first place. That is why the Marines were attacked. The major problem with Lebanon was mission creep.

[Ned]

Clinton did the same thing in Mogadishu and has the same thing happen to him.

All this goes to show is that peacekeeping missions are extremely high risk.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I certainly hope not, Bush has put America's interests ahead of the interests of other nations while Clinton did the exact opposite.

The results say otherwise. Clinton put America's interests first but was polite about how he did it. I don't know how anyone can say Bush put's the country's interest first when he runs up a $500 billion per year deficit. That's the biggest deficit in the history of the world and it is like a lead anchor weighting down the future of our people. Sadly, less then 20% of that is war costs and the other 80% comes from tax cuts (51% of which have gone to the top 1% of the population; what about the other 99% of Americans?), increased farm & business subsidies (that's not very free market), or for new entilement spending. Any way you look at this Bush has been wreckless with out country's future.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

The EU 15 had an average national debt of about 64% of GDP in 2002. Belgium and Italy had over 100%, has had Japan. The raw relative national debt is not your problem.

I disagree. sure, other nations have been more profilegate but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. Every penny we borrow has a certain amount of interest which must be paid back. This interest is almost always higher then the rate of inflation plus the growth rate for the national economy. That means the national debt is eatting away at America's future and we are dumping huge debts onto our children.

A better solution is to not charge up huge credit card bills now and to live with in our means. By doing this we will have more money to spend on our national programs without raising taxes plus our children won't have to find a way to dig us out of the fiscal train wreck we put the nation into.

[Ned]

Oerdin, I think the critical factor is not whether we pay real interest on the debt, but whether the debt is growing or shrinking as a percentage of GDP.

[Last Conformist]

@Oerdin: CBH claimed that the American national debt was the reason the dollar fell against the euro - that the euro countries have much higher (relative) national debts prety much kills that idea, I should think.

But that's not to say that the American debt isn't bad. As Ned says, the fact it's growing is problematic. It's growing in some of the euro countries too, but, IIUC, nowhere as quickly.

[Serb]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Russia will give that Muslim Republic full interindent from Russia as the Russia army mortal is total destory while the Muslim Freedom Fight mortal is good. 80,000 Russia troop in that republe donot have the mortal to carry out than attack on anyone. They where not pay for the last couple month(like 2 years), far away from home, fighting than war they donot believe in draft against their will.
Draft evadeing is on the raise in Russia. Plus their outnumber the Freedom fight 10 to1, plus have heavy weapon, tanks, and planes and yet they are beaten men.

Oh no, not this crap again.


If Russians are beaten men in Chechnya, then who the hell Americans in Iraq? Complete suckers?
In Chechnya there is no such warfare like in Iraq. Insurgents there can't take any city or even small village under their control. Just can't. Their more or less capable formations were absolutely f*cked years ago. And survived several hundreds of mofos hidding their asses in mountains. And still you whine that Russians are beaten.
Thousands of combantants control Faluja or Mosul in Iraq for months and nobody shout about beaten Americans.

[DanS]

I don't know how anyone can say Bush put's the country's interest first when he runs up a $500 billion per year deficit.

When precisely did the US run up a $500 billion per year deficit? Didn't we just get through establishing that the highest was $413 billion, as the federal government counts things?

More histrionics from the Dems.

[Kuciwalker]

Wow! Only 2/5 of a billions, instead of 1/2!

I'm so proud

[Dinner]

So have we all agreed that the Guardian is a worthless rag yet?