What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Perhaps....just perhaps....it's time to try something new.

Something harsher.

Vel you should know better, one nation conquering another is hardly a new approach. And it worked real well in the last two world wars didn't it?

[Velociryx]

Actually Willem's post sums it up very nicely, on reflection.

Yep...it's your world too!

Now....how 'bout act like it!

How 'bout take some responsibility, and take an active hand in things.

If something's not right in the world, instead of b*tching about it till someone else comes along to fix it, and then b*tching some more when their fix isn't what you woulda done, how 'bout maybe....just MAYBE rolling up your sleeves and making something happen?

Nahhh.....that'd be too much like work.

Easier to just stay home and gripe.

Gotcha.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

We just don't want to your cowboy diplomacy, guns blazing at high noon and all of that. We're sick and tired of hearing how powerful the US is, and how many people it can kill if it sets it's mind to it.

Screw you! It's our world too, and we have a right to have a say in how justice will be served on this planet just like you do. We don't have to dance to the US's drum everytime you get an urge to go kick some butt.

That does sum it up rather well (the "cowboy" thing does seem to be a common stereotype, doesn't it?). And it isn't entirely unjustified. But neither is Vel's rejoinder.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

We're not going over there to conquer it. It will not become the 51st state (tho when they put a new government in place, we may pave over some of the desert and stick a Wal-Mart there).

The Afghani government is holding. With luck, they'll continue to do so.

We're not perfect....God is that ever true! We're far, far from that.

But we're in there, every day, TRYING to effect change in the world. Not whining about it. Not talking about it. Not wishing it'd change on its own, and not taking a stance of appeasement.

Are we right?

I don't know.

But we're trying.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Willem.....just how do you propose to remove him?

From within. It's up to the Iraqi people to get rid of him, not some American politician. In the meantime we keep him contained, with a permanent inspection team on the ground, and constant interference with his imports and exports.

And if he so much as gets out of line once, then we go in and remove him. But we do it as an international force, not like some lone gunslinger marching in and saving the day for all the "helpless folk".

[CerberusIV]

The American people elected GWB as their president (at least a minority of you apparently did) so he is the public face of the USA. If other people then perceive your president as evil, stupid, triggerhappy or whatever then there is an assumption that the people who voted for him think like he does and get tarred with the same brush.

If you personally didn't vote Republican or disagree with the way GWB is doing things then that is just tough. Blame your fellow americans who put GWB in the White House, not the non-americans who complain. We have enough to do to deal with our own elected idiots.

Myself, I don't believe GWB is evil, I fear that he is genuine and believes every word he says and that makes him far more dangerous than any evil dictator.

[Arrian]

Willem,

The "removal from within" has been tried and failed. Saddam put it down. We refused to get involved, so it failed.

...and if he so much as gets out of line once...

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Okay...good plan.

So....what's your government doing to enact that?

You guys....fostering the seeds of rebellion from internally? Drumming up internal support for when the Candaian army lands to assist......or are you just talking about it while he continues to build WMD's?

Cos see....there's a difference there.

Talking about removing him from within is easy.

Execution of that plan....not so easy (see Arrian's post above....'s been tried once, but hey...if you wanna show us how it's done...cool!)

But...I like it! It's a good alternate plan.

I'm fairly certain that your government does NOT have operatives in Iraq working toward that goal....but it's a viable alternative.

-=Vel=-

(at this stage of the game, I'm thinking it's prolly a bit late for that, but a year ago, I'd have agreed 100%)

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by loinburger


Oh, my own opinion doesn't play into this. I was just pointing out the silliness of Demerzel claiming that the Americans troll the Europeans more than the Europeans troll the Americans. At most they've reached parity.

All I said was that it goes both ways, you can't cry wolf at an "Anti-American" thread if you participate/condone "Anti-European" ones ( & naturally vice-versa ). I don't believe I ever said there were more Americans trolling than Europeans, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the "liberate" line is something I've taken notice of, how is America planning to liberate Iraq? Are you planning to garrison it for years/decades until democracy has taken hold successfully? If so, kudos. If not, how?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem is that most of the time (not all of the time), when Euros disagree with something the US is doing, they do so in this aristocratic, paternalistic way, as if to say...."Oh dear, there goes our wayward child....off doing something foolish again.....if he only had proper breeding and some couth....and perhaps a dash of our European sense, he'd do such-and-so."

Like Alexis de Tocqueville?

The Americans, in their intercourse with strangers, appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise. The most slender eulogy is acceptable to them, the most exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort praise, and if you resist their entreaties, they fall to praising themselves. It would seem as if, doubting their own merit, they wished to have it constantly exhibited before their eyes. Their vanity is not only greedy, but restless and jealous; it will grant nothing, while it demands everything, but is ready to beg and to quarrel at the same time.

If I say to an American that the country he lives in is a fine one, "Ay," he replies, "there is not its equal in the world." If I applaud the freedom that its inhabitants enjoy, he answers: "Freedom is a fine thing, but few nations are worthy to enjoy it."... At length I leave him to the contemplation of himself; but he returns to the charge and does not desist till he has got me to repeat all I had just been saying. It is impossible to conceive a more troublesome or more garrulous patriotism; it wearies even those who are disposed to respect it.

Which may be paternalistic, but right on the mark. Even ~170 years later.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CerberusIV

Myself, I don't believe GWB is evil, I fear that he is genuine and believes every word he says and that makes him far more dangerous than any evil dictator.

I too believe that Bush believes in what he says - at least about OBL and Iraq. This certainly makes him dangerous - to OBL and Iraq.

I was wondering, though, did Hitler truly believe in the injustice of Versailles - or was it all a ploy? Hitler certainly was dangerous.

[Kropotkin]

Look, I'm sure all here can agree that Saddam is a real ****er and we all like his regime to end. However when it comes to the current situation we have to remember that it didn't arise from the US et al. reacting against something he did, this is the US acting. The former group of weapons inspectors left in, what was it? -97, -98? More or less 'voluntary' as the regime didn't cooperate fully. What happend then? Nothing. OK so it was another man in charge in the land of the brave but did the policy really change as soon as Bush got into office? No, not really. Then came that incident at WTC and everything changed for the US, not in the ME. Countries that wasn't attacked might not at all se Iraq as a bigger threat than the US did before that. And why should they?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian


That does sum it up rather well (the "cowboy" thing does seem to be a common stereotype, doesn't it?). And it isn't entirely unjustified. But neither is Vel's rejoinder.

No, it's not. But over and over again I see the Americans jump up on their soapboxes and start waving their flags because someone dares to express a different view. They're not interested in listening to what's being said, they don't care whether there might be some new alternative if we really, really looked. All they want to do to is drop bombs and kill Iraqis. And they expect the rest of the world to jump in on the slaughter as gleefully as they do.

Well I'm sorry, there's some of us who view the taking of thousands of innocent lives as something abhorrent, that must be avoided if at all possible! And for the record, I don't support the French view either, nor do most of the other nations in the world. But I certainly don't agree with jumping in there until the inspectors have at least had a chance to do their job. Even if that means months, not weeks.

[HershOstropoler]

"This certainly makes him dangerous - to OBL and Iraq."

It makes him dangerous for Saddam. OBL, however, would never have dreamed of getting so much help from Bush.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
We're not going over there to conquer it. It will not become the 51st state (tho when they put a new government in place, we may pave over some of the desert and stick a Wal-Mart there).

One sovereign nation invading another is conquest, no matter what type of semantic slant you try to put on it. Or do you think that the US will allow the next leader to be an anti-American/anti-capitalist, if that's what the people want?