Misplaced European arrogance

[Dutch-NJ]

While Europeans are trying to make a buck by capitalizing on anti-Americanism................

“German engineering, Swiss innovation, American nothing”
http://www.neandernews.com/?p=332​

........... American taxpayers are spending billions defending those ungrateful Europeans.

http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?s...dering-building-anti-missile-site-in-CzechRep

 

[Melensdad]

But Dutch, that is the rub, they don't think they need to be defended. Their point of view is that we went to war for no reason at all (many Americans, including myself, feel that way too). So since they feel we are in an unjustified war, they don't see why they should be grateful.

 

[bczoom]

But Dutch, that is the rub, they don't think they need to be defended. Their point of view is that we went to war for no reason at all (many Americans, including myself, feel that way too). So since they feel we are in an unjustified war, they don't see why they should be grateful.

It depends on which war you're talking about.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

But Dutch, that is the rub, they don't think they need to be defended. Their point of view is that we went to war for no reason at all (many Americans, including myself, feel that way too). So since they feel we are in an unjustified war, they don't see why they should be grateful.

Here in New Jersey I'm surrounded by people who feel the same as you.

What I can't understand is why those same people wear seat belts when they drive, want gun control, worry about global warming, watch their diets, exercise, and take precautions against all the other stuff they perceive as a potential danger.

Why do they defend against anything until it happens?

I take all threats and warnings seriously.

My only problem with the Iraq situation is that we won a quick military victory and are languishing politically unnecessarily.

 

[Melensdad]

It depends on which war you're talking about.

Brian, how true. Many Europeans and American are strong supporters of our efforts in Afghanistan, but the war that gets the press, and that I was referring to was Iraq.

Here in New Jersey I'm surrounded by people who feel the same as you. . .

You would probably be surprised at how conservative/libertarian my views really are, so I'd suggest you not pigeon hole me with East Coast liberals because you will find you did so inaccurately. But I will not blindly follow a confused neo-con when I think he is wrong, and has been wrong. Its just a shame that we could not get another real conservative in office, but given the choice between Kerry and dub-ya, I firmly believe we got the better guy, but that said, I knew he was just not good enough.

 

[beds]

Its just a shame that we could not get another real conservative in office, but given the choice between Kerry and dub-ya, I firmly believe we got the better guy, but that said, I knew he was just not good enough.

Did I just hear the Okee Don alarm go off? Where is Don, btw?

 

[bczoom]

If you want to contact DaimlerChrysler to let you know what you think of this (as I did), the best place seems to be here.

For the forseeable future, you won't find me an any of their showrooms.

Brian, how true. Many Europeans and American are strong supporters of our efforts in Afghanistan, but the war that gets the press, and that I was referring to was Iraq.

I hate to even mention it again after the last fiasco on the subject , but I've been talking about the last 100 years of wars the US has been in.

 

[jdwilson44]

Here in New Jersey I'm surrounded by people who feel the same as you.

What I can't understand is why those same people wear seat belts when they drive, want gun control, worry about global warming, watch their diets, exercise, and take precautions against all the other stuff they perceive as a potential danger.

Why do they defend against anything until it happens?

I take all threats and warnings seriously.

My only problem with the Iraq situation is that we won a quick military victory and are languishing politically unnecessarily.

I have said this before on this forum but I am one of those people who is against the Iraq war - and have been against it from the beginning. I also don't wear my seatbelt, I don't want gun control, I do watch my diet sometimes, I don't smoke or drink, I ride a motorcycle occasionally, and I also do other dangerous stuff like crawl up my 12 pitch roof without a safety harness and play with electricity in the rain. At 42 I still have all my limbs, have never been operated on, and have only had a few broken bones. I think a big part of the problem is these same people who want safety at any cost that are responsible for a lot of the foreign interventions that this country has gotten involved in. As soon as the media and the goverment start telling people that they are going to get attacked by Muslims everyone goes off the deep end and supports anything the goverment does that claims to mitigate the danger.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq never attacked us. You can say that they might have attacked us - you can say that they supported terrorism, you can say they killed hundreds of thousands of their own people - whatever - none of these are solid reasons for us to go to war against them in direct conflict with international law and our own previous history as a country. In fact it could be argued that going to war against Iraq has made us LESS safe as a country because now every country in the world has got to wonder whether or not they would be better off attacking us first before we come after them, this applies to countries like China, Russian, Iraq and North Korea who have or may have the capability to attack us with nuclear weapons.

Those people who can't seem to understand why the Iraqis are not falling all over themselves to be grateful that we are over there must have missed the course on human nature when they were children. I have heard from policemen that the worst calls for them to take are domestic violence situations. The simplified reason is that because even if you have a situation where the father is a raging drunk who beats his wife and kids mercilessly as soon as you the cop walk in the door and start whacking the dad with your nightstick or try to arrest him the family will in many cases turn on you. This is a direct comparison to what is going on in Iraq - we were appreciated when we first got there and took out Saddam and after that it has all been downhill. If the situation was handled differently by our goverment we might not be in the mess we are in now but given the fact that the Bush Administration went into this whole affair with the head in the clouds attitude that the Iraqis would be pissing themselves because they would be so happy we were there a realistic attitude towards Iraq was something that was never going to happen.

I wonder why there are so many people in this country who claim to be patriots who are so all fired up about invading another country, going thru 100's of billions of our tax dollars, killing a few thousand of our soldiers, enabling our goverment to circumvent laws and spy on us, etc. Have any of these alleged patriots ever read the words of our founding fathers? The words that tell us to stay out of foreign entanglements? , the words that tell us to distrust our own goverment?

As far as the Europeans go we should cease spending any more American tax dollars on the defense of Europe. We should pull all of our troops out of Europe and bring them home. Let the Europeans contribute to their own defense for a change.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

As far as the Europeans go we should cease spending any more American tax dollars on the defense of Europe. We should pull all of our troops out of Europe and bring them home. Let the Europeans contribute to their own defense for a change.

Our presence in Europe, Japan, and Korea give us some really good tactical positions for our defence. Additionally, the economic influence we can exert on the economies of these host nations is huge.

In the big picture I don't think of it as us defending them. It's just us making sure the rest of the world knows we can touch them quickly and effectively if needed.

In a few years the technology may improve that we don't need the huge deployments but for now it is a necessary evil in the bigger picture.

 

[LarryRB]

Our presence in Europe, Japan, and Korea give us some really good tactical positions for our defence. .

In WWII, they needed a post every three hundred miles. Most always the main reason was fuel... For trucks, tanks and airplanes. Equipment of the day and especially airplanes did not have the distance available to them... Today, we don't really need a presence in most places... One in the mideast and one in asia somewhere... Mostly for the Navy as it is obvious, those big canoes they play with are still a little slow moving. But then again their fighter jets can stay up long hours with mid air refueling, so something can be accomplished while the canoes get closer.

 

[bczoom]

Mostly for the Navy as it is obvious, those big canoes they play with are still a little slow moving.

It's been an hour + 15 and not a squid on the site to stand up against the "canoe" remark?

PB - I think our technical and tactical growth has made it where the European bases are now no longer needed. As for economic influence, I think that too is gone.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

PB - I think our technical and tactical growth has made it where the European bases are now no longer needed. As for economic influence, I think that too is gone.

Last I checked we couldn't get a fast hit in the middle east launched from US soil. It's still going to take some time for things to get there. In war - time is money. Having things closer is always going to be better.

You can't tell me that the logistical benefits of these locations is not a huge advantage.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

I have said this before on this forum but I am one of those people who is against the Iraq war - and have been against it from the beginning.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq never attacked us. You can say that they might have attacked us - you can say that they supported terrorism, you can say they killed hundreds of thousands of their own people - whatever - none of these are solid reasons for us to go to war against them in direct conflict with international law and our own previous history as a country. In fact it could be argued that going to war against Iraq has made us LESS safe as a country because now every country in the world has got to wonder whether or not they would be better off attacking us first before we come after them, this applies to countries like China, Russian, Iraq and North Korea who have or may have the capability to attack us with nuclear weapons.

I’ve heard those arguments so many times

1) Iraq didn’t attack America
2) Other countries may wonder if they would be better off attacking us first.​

Let’s address those one at a time.

1) Iraq didn’t attack America.

How about our "previous history” as a country?

Here is list of all major American military conflicts. In which of these conflicts was America attacked first?

American Revolution (1775–1783)
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Civil War (1861–1865)
Indian Wars 1776-1890)
Spanish American War (1898)
World War I (1914–1918)

• Germany

• Austria-Hungary

• Bulgaria

• Turkey

World War II (1939–1945)

• Japan *

• Germany

• Italy

Korean War (1950–1953)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Vietnam War (1961–1973)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001)

2) Other countries may wonder if they would be better off attacking us first.

I’m sure many countries have considered doing just that many times. What stopped them?
Respect?
Love of Peace?
International support?
Fear?

* December 7, 1941, Japan did attacked us first. They lost the war.


October 22, 1962, President Kennedy said, “It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Plain simple talk. No U.N. "diplomacy". ................ The Soviet Union backed down.


November 4, 1979, Iran attacked America by storming the United States Embassy in Tehran and taking Americans captive. President Carter did nothing, and we are still having problems with Iran.

 

[Melensdad]

Dutch, I find your first point to be totally irrelevant and meaningless. "Iraq didn't attack us first." You justify attacking Iraq by citing examples from our history where we were not attacked first, yet you fail to take into account the surrounding world events, treaties and alliances for any of those prior events.


As for point #2 "Other Countries may wonder if they would be better off attacking us first."
I suggest that the reason other countries don't attack us first is FEAR. Al Quaida is not a country, it attacked us, it was protected by Afghanistan and the Talibani government. It lost. Quickly. There is, from my contacts in Afghanistan, a small Taliban force, but most of the problems there are tribal and region. Their version of insurgency is due to a lack of nationalism, poverty, and regional conflicts between the tribla leaders within the nation and a little Taliban problem tossed into the mix.

Iraq is a different animal. It was defying the UN, but it was not a threat. It was something that the President was 'sold on' as a great P.R. move, a quick military victory, and a 'freeing' of the people from repression, and using the cover of a U.N. mandate realated to WMD. Well we got the fastest military victory possible, we freed the people, and we left a huge vacuum of power with no plan to actually fill it. The WMD, while most rational people/governments believe they existed, were a myth, and were not jutification to invade. I don't believe we were lied to by our President, I believe all the governments had bad information. I fully support our military, but don't believe we should be there . . . and I don't believe we should pull out now that we screwed things up. We broke it, we must fix it.

 

[LarryRB]

The WMD, while most rational people/governments believe they existed, were a myth, and were not jutification to invade. I don't believe we were lied to by our President, I believe all the governments had bad information.

To take some of your quote... not really a myth Bob.. If you remember all the satellite pictures shown on TV leading up to the invasion, the necessary and basic components were there or well under construction. If left alone, and depending on who's estimate you want to believe, he could have been very close to mass producing WMD's when, (when), the final construction was complete. He purposely was segregating the needed components to offset satellite imagery, and by hundreds of miles... Put all these components together, and you have a full blown factory...

 

[Melensdad]

I suppose I was not clear. I apologize for that. WMD did exist at one time. They had the capabilities to make them. However, in the end, it appears that the WMD were nowhere to be found. Apparently destroyed some time ago. I do agree that he could have gotten back into production quickly, however, that was not the charge against him by the UN. The charge against him was that he STILL HAD STOCKPILES of these weapons. And also lets be honest about WMD. Any moderately developed nation, and most 3rd world nations can make toxic gases, toxic compounds, and turn them into WMD by combining things made in factories within their borders.

 

[HGM]

I have to agree with much of what you have said Bob.. I still feel that the WMD thing is blown out of proportion though.. There is no doubt(in my mind) that they existed and he was a severe danger even though we didnt find them..We just dont know where they are.. We didnt know about these planes either.. You certainly cant say they didnt exist, now we cant dig up every inch of that country to find them either, so maybe its a matter of faith..?..

 

[bczoom]

If you want to contact DaimlerChrysler to let you know what you think of this (as I did), the best place seems to be here.

For the forseeable future, you won't find me an any of their showrooms.

I received an e-mail response from the "Smart infocenter team" at DaimlerChrysler.

Thanks for your e-mail and advice on our recent local (only South Africa) advertising billboard.

Please let us clarify that the message on this billboard refers to the characteristics of vehicles manufactured in various countries. American vehicles are famous for being large in size and as a result are not recognized as very fuel efficient. These characteristics are in no way insulting to American vehicles but are regarded as a general perception of the authentic American vehicle.

smart is a Euro-centric brand and this message aimed to portray the brand image and product characteristics. This billboard was produced by the South African smart organisation and formed part of a local campaign that promotes the smart forfour vehicle features and brand personality.

South Africa hosts a rainbow nation with a melting pot of cultures, races, religious denominations and differences. Its constitution respects each and every individual citizen. As such, the South African smart organisation is also very sensitive to the basic principle of tolerance and understanding and the billboard would never have been permitted to go to production if it was an affront to these principles.

Nevertheless we had to realize that the message on the billboard was not understood and totally misinterpreted. As you might know, we at smart are part of a German-American company and do have customers around the world as well as American employees. Never was it our intention to insult any of these customers, employees or the American public. Therefore please note that we have withdrawn all concerned billboards as soon as the first complains came up and please let us apologize for any confusion or affront caused.

Kindly accept our apologies and take for granted that we will be more careful with our choice of marketing claims in the future.

Thank you for your understanding and best regards,

smart infocenter team.​

 

[jdwilson44]

I’ve heard those arguments so many times

1) Iraq didn’t attack America
2) Other countries may wonder if they would be better off attacking us first.
​

Let’s address those one at a time.

1) Iraq didn’t attack America.

How about our "previous history” as a country?

Here is list of all major American military conflicts. In which of these conflicts was America attacked first?

American Revolution (1775–1783)
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Civil War (1861–1865)
Indian Wars 1776-1890)
Spanish American War (1898)
World War I (1914–1918)

• Germany

• Austria-Hungary

• Bulgaria

• Turkey

World War II (1939–1945)

• Japan *

• Germany

• Italy

Korean War (1950–1953)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Vietnam War (1961–1973)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001)

2) Other countries may wonder if they would be better off attacking us first.

I’m sure many countries have considered doing just that many times. What stopped them?
Respect?
Love of Peace?
International support?
Fear?

* December 7, 1941, Japan did attacked us first. They lost the war.


October 22, 1962, President Kennedy said, “It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Plain simple talk. No U.N. "diplomacy". ................ The Soviet Union backed down.


November 4, 1979, Iran attacked America by storming the United States Embassy in Tehran and taking Americans captive. President Carter did nothing, and we are still having problems with Iran.

You listed all the wars thruout US history and then at the bottom you gave the very response the US should have given instead of going to war against Iraq:

October 22, 1962, President Kennedy said, “It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Plain simple talk. No U.N. "diplomacy". ................ The Soviet Union backed down.

If instead of responding to alleged threats against the US by Iraqi WMD's, Iranian nuclear bombs, transfers of WMD's of any form to terrorist groups, etc. - the US had simply come out and said something similar to what Kennedy said, in other words said that any terrorist attack against the US that uses WMD's will be taken as a proxy attack by the following countries, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, (add others as you see fit) . In the event of such an attack against the United States we will assume that said terrorist parties have the explicit support of certain nation states. In the event of such an attack we (the US) will endeavor to satisfy with reasonable doubt but not with absolute evidence (because such evidence will never be forthcoming) which nation state has supported the attack in any form. After getting such evidence a full nuclear attack will be forthcoming against said nation. In the event of attack by Al Quaeda any countries that support this group will be attacked, in absence of evidence against a country the religion of Islam as a whole will be held responsible for such attack as Al Quaeda has claimed to represent Islam and Islam has not repudiated said claim. With that forementioned assumption any devastating attack by Al Queada will be met with the utter eradication of the cities of Mecca and Medina.

An edict such as this would make half the world shit their pants but it would have been a lot less costly to the US than the current Iraq war ($300 billion and counting), would not have killed another 2000 plus US citizens (US soldiers dead in Iraq), would have put the onus to solve these problems on other countries and the UN as they would now be risking nuclear annihilation - instead of the current situation where the US is pretty much the only one doing the fighting.

As you pointed out in your example of what happened with Cuba we were never attacked by the Soviet Union. In all of the other examples of all the other wars thruout our history there has always been followups to every war we got involved in. The Revolution led to the war of 1812. Spanish American war got us involved with Japan during WWII because we were in the Phillipines and also got us involved with Phillipine Moro rebels. WWI got us directly involved in WWII. Iraq will lead us into other wars that we do not even know about yet.

The last example is the only one that never got us directly involved in another war and was the only one that did not directly cost American soldier's lives. A similar response to the Iraq issue would have gone a lot further towards making this a safer country than the current war has. A response such as this would have also avoided all of the " are there WMD's or are there not WMD's" bs that has gone back and forth for the last 3 years. With a response like this it really would not have mattered one way or the other. Any use of them would have been met with devastating response thereby nullifying their potential use. As you pointed out - the Soviets never attacked us - neither would anybody else if the law was laid down.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

You listed all the wars thruout US history and then at the bottom you gave the very response the US should have given instead of going to war against Iraq:

October 22, 1962, President Kennedy said, “It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Plain simple talk. No U.N. "diplomacy". ................ The Soviet Union backed down.

If instead of responding to alleged threats against the US by Iraqi WMD's, Iranian nuclear bombs, transfers of WMD's of any form to terrorist groups, etc. - the US had simply come out and said something similar to what Kennedy said, in other words said that any terrorist attack against the US that uses WMD's will be taken as a proxy attack by the following countries, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, (add others as you see fit) . In the event of such an attack against the United States we will assume that said terrorist parties have the explicit support of certain nation states. In the event of such an attack we (the US) will endeavor to satisfy with reasonable doubt but not with absolute evidence (because such evidence will never be forthcoming) which nation state has supported the attack in any form. After getting such evidence a full nuclear attack will be forthcoming against said nation. In the event of attack by Al Quaeda any countries that support this group will be attacked, in absence of evidence against a country the religion of Islam as a whole will be held responsible for such attack as Al Quaeda has claimed to represent Islam and Islam has not repudiated said claim. With that forementioned assumption any devastating attack by Al Queada will be met with the utter eradication of the cities of Mecca and Medina.

An edict such as this would make half the world shit their pants but it would have been a lot less costly to the US than the current Iraq war ($300 billion and counting), would not have killed another 2000 plus US citizens (US soldiers dead in Iraq), would have put the onus to solve these problems on other countries and the UN as they would now be risking nuclear annihilation - instead of the current situation where the US is pretty much the only one doing the fighting.

As you pointed out in your example of what happened with Cuba we were never attacked by the Soviet Union....... (that) is the only one that never got us directly involved in another war and was the only one that did not directly cost American soldier's lives. A similar response to the Iraq issue would have gone a lot further towards making this a safer country than the current war has. A response such as this would have also avoided all of the " are there WMD's or are there not WMD's" bs that has gone back and forth for the last 3 years. With a response like this it really would not have mattered one way or the other. Any use of them would have been met with devastating response thereby nullifying their potential use. As you pointed out - the Soviets never attacked us - neither would anybody else if the law was laid down.

First let me say I enjoy your responses. You and I may appear to disagree on the surface, but you obviously have formed rational opinions in a logical manner.

One of the benefits of reaching my age is that I actually lived through some of these historical events and know first hand what the world was like and what public opinion was at the time.

Here are a few things to consider.

1) When JFK issued his ultimatum to the Soviets, Khrushchev was the Premier and had to answer to the Politburro. If Stalin had still been the Soviet dictator (answerable to no one), Stalin may have reacted differently.

2) The Soviets didn’t trust the some unproven dictator of a backward third world country to have his finger on the trigger of a nuclear weapon.

3) Even though JFK won the election by only 49.7% to 49.5% only 100,000 votes over Nixon (sort of like the 2000 & 2004 election, huh?), after the election over the vast majority of Americans supported JFK.

4) When JFK told the world of the missiles in Cuba, the news media accepted that. There was no second guessing or arguing that the missiles weren’t actually armed.

5) When JFK threatened a possible nuclear response, they was no public or media uproar.

Now, consider Iraq. Saddam was a megalomaniac dictator. Saddam answered to no one. Saddam had already killed members of his own cabinet who didn’t give him 100% loyalty. Saddam would have thought JFK was bluffing just as he thought Bush was bluffing.

Regarding your proposal that the US should have “simply come out and said something similar to what Kennedy said............”

President Bush DID.
​

Read the President’s speech of September 20, 2001.
”We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Read the whole speech.

Bush sounds as clear to me in 2001 as JFK sounded in 1962.

Did the news media support Bush? Of course, for about one day.

Did the vast majority of Americans support Bush? Yeah, for about 2 weeks.

Did Congress support Bush? Yup, until the polls and media raised the heat.

Going by the 2001 ultimatum on terror, America should have attacked every country in the Middle East, and a few countries in Europe.......... beginning with France and Germany.

 

[HGM]

Dutch,
Its kinda funny isnt it? As odd as it mad sound and as low as his approval rating are, I'm willing to bet that 30yrs from now, Bush will be among some very good company(as far as presidents go).. He has made mistakes, no one can doubt that, but who hasnt? I totally agreed that we had to do something, the scene over there made me nervous(always has and always will) just for the fact that they are a different type of being with far different mentalities.. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly 3yrs when I was growing up.. I can tell you I saw some chit that I will never forget, even at a young age, it was extremely impressive(not in a good way)..The average American has no idea what its like over there.... As I have said, we are now involved in a holly war that has been going on forever.. I believe we will always be involved, from here on out.. Unless something major gets us out, not sure that would be a good thing, no matter how bad we'd like it... They are animals. They teach their kids to carry wepons with the intent to take human lives at early ages(as soon as they can carry one).. They refuse to accept the fact that someone who doesnt believe in their faith should have the right to exist.. Therefore, anyone not of their faith and not willing to die for their cause shal be targeted by them.. They will not forget, time has no bearing on this.. 10-20-30yrs, they will strike again.. We cannot forget how long this war has been going on without us...

Back to my point.... My problem with this Presidency, is that although he made the difficult decision to step in and stop Saddam and his support of the terrorists that targetted us.. He did what he set out to do and has maintained his dirrection throuh it all, but in the interests of political pressure, has not stepped it up after the fact.. We need more pressure in the region to finish and totally squash the enemy(Al Quida and the insurgency) this isnt over just because we got Saddam, its just a portion of it.. Iran is a problem that will also need to be dealt with(like it or not) and it will make for a much more volitile situation.. We need Iraq under control and in control and on our side when this happens.... The vocal portion of this country are against him and anything he proposes(right or wrong) regardless of the reasons(it came from Bush, it must be wrong )..Oposition is news, this terrible excuse for media will always take advantage of and make a grand spectical of our internal differences for the whole world to see.. We are allowing our media to exploit the controversey and weaken us from within.. Our veiw from outside this country(not just Europe) must be pretty poor with all of the negative comments and actions shown toward our chosen leader.. We have high profile people calling the war effort everything from murder to a mistake for all the world to see...We are imploding while trying to remain a super power that maintains order in the world.. How much respect would you have for your parents if they were always contradicting eachother in front of you while you were being repremanded??

I fully understand the right for someone to disagree with the president.. I have no problem with that.. But rather than slander him and undermine everything he tries to do(because he is him), those that dissagree need to plan for the next election by picking someone that better represents them... He cannot be re elected, there will be someone new in '08.. But lets not forget, the President is just a spokesman and scapegoat for the government.. While the Democrats and media are fighting the President, the senate and house are still making most of the desicions..

 

[JimR]

The media in america isn't worth the air time. They lie and tell half truths just like the Democrats. They hate the Republicans and will do whatever it takes to destroy them. They even had a failed tv show that was supposed to give the idea of Hillary Clinton as president. This was to prime the population for the coming election. I guess America was a little smarter than the producers were.