Im just really curious...

[Ledhead]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
ah..
I see.. we are talking about all the past ones. Nothing from the past 4 years. Ok.

lol. IIRC, Iran was under the influence under a Democrat....

Shall we go back onto the topic.. or should we go into all the political meddling of Europe over the past century?

IRAQ! for the second time in this thread (by me anyway).
My point is that nothing has changed in the way the USA handels its "problems". You seem to think that there is a different USA since Bush...wake up!

I was refering to Iran in the 50ies, a military coup supported by the USA. President during that time was Eisenhower, a republican I believe...lol?
It seems like us foreigners now more about US history than many of its citizens, at least the less flattering things...

Am I defending European meddling? I wasn't aware...
I think the diffence is that we Europeans have a tarnished and cynical view of our polititians, and we try to the best of our abilities to hold them accountable. Many raise their voices and demonstrate and so on. We've been around the block since the Middle Ages with crusaders killing in the name of God, the Spanish killing pagan American natives to save their souls, with British waring, killing and colonizing to bring "civilization" to the illitirate savage, and then of course the nazis and the communists...so most of us have pretty good notion of what its about.
While I think that you Americans some kind of virginesque view of your nation and its president. Pure, unblemished and innocent.

A philosophical question; Is it OK to do something that you know is really bad and wrong just because you know that someone else has done it before? does that make it alright?

How many years ago was Iraq? One?
So why don't we go back to the topic...

[Largefry07]

I actually think Bush has done a very good thing for Iraq. Right now it is about as bad as when Saddam was in power, well maybe not that bad. I believe that we all argee that history repeats itself, right? Well it does, always has and always will. You may ask where I am going with this? Well,:lol: look at post WWII Japan and Germany. Their ecomony was horrible a few years after the war. Iraq's ecomony is horrible. There were terror attacks in Germany, (I don't know if there were any in Japan).


But now look at Germany and Japan. The Envy of the world with their massive ecomonys and I think the Jappennesse people and Germens think lifeis pretty good. Well as far as their country goes.

Why you might ask Germany and Japan have such good ecomonys?

Well really it's all b/c of international reconstuction. Lead by the USA.

So really Bush has done somewhat a favor for the Iraqi people by taking out Saddam and planting a seed that will become a huge greenstalk.

So vote Bush and let him finish what he has started
The US along with Britian help rebuild Germanys and Japans ecomony after WWII.(When I am talking about Germany I mean West German at the time).

Look what is happening in Iraq. The US and the Brits along with a few other countrys are rebuilding Iraq. We are makeing a democratic country like we did in West Germany and in Japan.

And 60 years later the countrys are glowing:angel:

So give Iraq time. And then you all will see that Iraq will become a ecomony might. Of coarse many of us will be very old and some of us might not even be here but the day will come when Iraq is like Germany and Jaapn. Why will Iraq become like them?

Because History repeats it'self.:cheers:

[Ben Nevis]

But the democrats restructured western Europe (it was entire western Europe that was in ashes and restructured not just Germany) and Japan, not the Republicans.

I wonder where the anti-Bush Americans are. One could conclude from this forum that all young in computer games interested Americans are Republicans. Where are the democrats!!!!????

[Hector]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
But the democrats restructured western Europe (it was entire western Europe that was in ashes and restructured not just Germany) and Japan, not the Republicans.

I wonder where the anti-Bush Americans are. One could conclude from this forum that all young in computer games interested Americans are Republicans. Where are the democrats!!!!????

i think they are at school:D

[Largefry07]

Democrats.......... Here democrats.........We all would like to here your side of the story.



Where could they be???????

I'm only kinding. Except for the part that we all would like to here your side of the story.:lol:

[Sir Turylon]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
But the democrats restructured western Europe (it was entire western Europe that was in ashes and restructured not just Germany) and Japan, not the Republicans.

I wonder where the anti-Bush Americans are. One could conclude from this forum that all young in computer games interested Americans are Republicans. Where are the democrats!!!!????

lol. You'd be surprised.

just go on IRC and ask who is what... most young kids that play video games would vote for democrats... since... most of them come from Democract families.

FYI, for 3rd or 4th or 5th time.... I'm not a republican!!!!!!!!!!!!

careful Ben. The Democrats did not do it alone.

@the military Coup in 50s. be more specific if you can with the date.

FDR was really a Republican. Nixon really was a Democrat. JFK was nothing but a playboy. lol. Johnson was an idiot. Ford, Carter, Clinton.... (man we've had some bad presidents.) LOL. :cheers:

[Ledhead]

-53. The primeminister Mosaddeq wanted to get rid of British dominance in Iran and weaken the power of the shah. Mosaddeq had popular support, he hadn't his own political party but of course his stance against British imperialism and the hegemony of the shah made the communists support him. USA staged a military coup under the agreement that Irans oilprofits would be divided equal between Iran (the pocket of the shah) and a US-British consortium.

Funny. The presidents that you (US) think were the worst, are the ones that we (Europeans) like the best...Carter and Clinton.
Of course you look at it from a domestic point of view, and we from an international.
But as USA is such a dominant player and force in all aspects in the world (and i don't have a problem with that as someone will always be the strongest), the USA should benefit more if you could elect a president that we also could like...
Did I take a wrong turn somewhere with that theory, cos it sounds perfect to me...

[Finellach]

It's funny that Americans think best of the presidents that wage wars and kill thousands of people and those who brought prosperity and peace to USA and to the world are frowned upon....talking about distorted perspective.

But then again what can you except from a nation that was born in conflict, propsers in conflict and will probably end one day in a conflict...:p

USA is the modern Roman Empire. ;)

[Spudster]

It is interesting to see what people in other countries think of the US. Its is really all your opinion, because if you lived in America you would see a different view of things. Not just as how the media puts it. I find it funny that you find it funny that that's what you think. (man weve had some bad presidents.)

yeah we have.....

of course, some countries wouldn't be here today because of the US.....but America wouldnt be here if it werent for some measly quaker peasants who came from England for freedom of religion....

[Sir Turylon]

Aye Ledhead. you hit a good point

Europeans like presidents that have weak foreign policy.. IE.. ones that would rather sit back here and focusing on making people richer rather than making the world safer. If that makes sense. Thank goodness that Reagan got into office when he did or the communists might have "won" the cold war.

If you took a poll of people on this side... The current trend is to turn the states into a European type country. I believe this would signal the final end of the decline we've been suffering over the past 50 years or so. The country would finally turn into the very thing we rebeled against. Now, I'm not saying being like Europe is bad... it is just not American. :) (IE, we but national interests over international interests when our national interests would be degraded if we chose the international idea.)

@Finellach
It's funny that Americans think best of the presidents that wage wars and kill thousands of people and those who brought prosperity and peace to USA and to the world are frowned upon....talking about distorted perspective.

You're view is European in nature... I could say your desire for wealth over security and soveriengty is a VERY un-American idea.

BTW, all nations are born from conflicts. Please be carefull about what you post about nation "founding." Nation from conflict is not reserved to only America.

[Haegemon]

Remains of Monroe's Doctrine (1823) "America will be for Americans". (Notice I don't wrote EEUU.)


This forum denotes 2 blocks in the world. At least if we extrapolate them we have:

US block. + Israel
(& England in the middle of both.)
EU block.

Muslim block (moderate & radical)

[Dobber]

I try to stay away from posting to the political threads, but I posted to the one similar to this one some month's back and I will again post this response to this one.

If the world views Kerry as the best man for the US presidency, then my vote belongs to Bush.

As someone else stated, it is for the American people to elect their leader, and that is what we will do. We will elect the President of the US, and hopefully it will be Bush.

And before I would ever express any opinion of any of your leaders, I would come to your country and live there long enough to see firsthand what was going on politically and economically in your country. I would never base any decision on anything I saw or heard in the news. News is always biased and usually so liberal that objectivity is lost. And I certainly wouldn't place any value in anything presented by an activist such as Michael Moore, until I had researched it for myself to see if I could place any credence in what he was presenting. If you lived here in the US, you would find that the majority of people here would not even give Michael Moore the time of day.

One last thing on John Kerry. I have no respect for a man that makes bastards of his children for his own gain and happiness.
(If you are wondering where that statement evolved, just give thought to this; In order to marry Teresa Heinz, he had to have his first marriage anulled, effectively saying the marriage never existed. That makes his children illegitimate.) I cannot support a man that would do that to his own children. If he can do that to his own children, what would he do to me and my countrymen.

@Sir Turylon, Spudster, & Cork :cheers:

[Ledhead]

Originally posted by 4zzY
for me there is no choice in this US election even if i could vote
i can not convince myself to vote for Bush
but i think Kerry is even more dangerous
because pleace explain me how people can elect
the closest we now have to the leader of the world
without knowing who he is in what he believes and what he'll do
this is very sKery indeed

But what did you know about Bush before he got elected (or rather given the victory by a court...), he intentions and agenda?
I'd say that if a canidate is heavily funded by different corporations, then he's really dangerous (cos he'll in theory be owing them favors. The Halliburton-affair is, I guess, a proof of that.).

[4zzY]

Bush is funny :D just joking dont stare
i do not support Bush (making the sign of the cross
uttering "Holly Mother of God save my soul")
im just saying that he is not worse tham Kerry
and thats what makes me crazy all the time
that the US can not propose a president
who i would find reasonabe
but thats maybe obvious all normal people
know that politics SUX and dont get involved

offtopic
the end of 1999 or beggining of 2000
on a meeting with people during the republican elections
Bush was asked what he thought about the talibans
his answer was
"They are great i like them, they really rock!" :beek:
:lol: :rofl:
after a short time he appologised
and explained that he thought the talibans were
some sort of a musik band
tell me how not to love this guy:hug:

[Ledhead]

His ignorance is what really scares me...and he's the commander of the strongest military force on earth...scary...

[Largefry07]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
lol. You'd be surprised.

just go on IRC and ask who is what... most young kids that play video games would vote for democrats... since... most of them come from Democract families.

FYI, for 3rd or 4th or 5th time.... I'm not a republican!!!!!!!!!!!!

careful Ben. The Democrats did not do it alone.

@the military Coup in 50s. be more specific if you can with the date.

FDR was really a Republican. Nixon really was a Democrat. JFK was nothing but a playboy. lol. Johnson was an idiot. Ford, Carter, Clinton.... (man we've had some bad presidents.) LOL. :cheers:

Well actually the Democrats are already here look who's winning in the poll Kerry 9 Bush 8.


Yes we have had our fare share of bad persidents but the few good presidents the we've had made us feel that everything would be ok. Just to name a few FDR, Ike, and then Ronald Reagan.
Democrats 1 Republics 2

:lol: :cheers: :peace:

[Ben Nevis]

FDR was really a Republican

Well, he was a democrat. What he really was is subjective.
Most Americans consider FDR to be the best US president ever (what do you expect with Dutch ancestors ;) ), thus in that sense the democrats win. Of coure this is a foolish "I win you loose, no I win you loose" game, but I do believe the republicans wouldn't have come up with the Marshall plan.
Some quotes from a website. FDR (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html)
Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the "good neighbor" policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.

Feeling that the future peace of the world would depend upon relations between the United States and Russia, he devoted much thought to the planning of a United Nations, in which, he hoped, international difficulties could be settled.

Well, FDR's interests are not where Bush's interest are

P.S.: I thought Teddy was a pretty good one too :cheers: (just to name a Republican that did take care of nature. Republicans and nature do go pretty well together. It's just Bush and nature :D :D that don't)

[Largefry07]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
Well, he was a democrat. What he really was is subjective.
Most Americans consider FDR to be the best US president ever (what do you expect with Dutch ancestors ;) ), thus in that sense the democrats win. Of coure this is a foolish "I win you loose, no I win you loose" game, but I do believe the republicans wouldn't have come up with the Marshall plan.
Some quotes from a website. FDR (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html)




Well, FDR's interests are not where Bush's interest are

P.S.: I thought Teddy was a pretty good one too :cheers: (just to name a Republican that did take care of nature. Republicans and nature do go pretty well together. It's just Bush and nature :D :D that don't)


FDR wasn't that best president to America. That honor goes to honest Abe. He freed the slaves and united the states to truly become the United States of America. FDR might of been the greatest President to the world but Lincoln was the best to the USA. And Abe was a republican. So Repulbican win.:D

Not really it's not a matter of win or lose.

Then I would have to say Washington was after Abe then the Great FDR

[Spudster]

Well actually Lincoln was the first Republican President and he fought in a war and actually went through 5 generals. Talk about pickiness. Then he picked U. S. Grant because he liked his bold moves and his rashness.....so much for a rebulican who liked nature....

just to name a Republican that did take care of nature. Republicans and nature do go pretty well together.

[Ben Nevis]

All American national parcs owe their existence to Theodore Roosevelt. I don't think any (former) president can beat his "greenness", and he was a Republican.