Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Face it USA..........Bush won - I wanna hear about other countries worldwide.  How does the rest of the world rate their government?

Face it NEOCON: Bush's choices have impacted the world. People are going to approve and disapprove. Right now, his approval is declining daily in America. War is serious business. I understand it is not to people that support your opinion. You have made that obvious. But the tragic waste of human life is inexcusable in many people's eyes. It may be very hard for you to accept, but the world does not hold Bush to high regard as you may wish.

Of course I've never heard any GnR-Neo-Con talk about Clinton, or bash anything liberal.  ::)

If you can't take what you dish out....

I don't agree w/ what my governement is doing right now ! But let's face it the french government is not influencing the world policy !

I can tell you I'm against what they plan to do w/ our health system but I don't think many people in here can discuss the subject !  :-X

tony bliar's a pussy. Gordon Brown will be no better.

Still, it's a step up from the Tory's any day.

Bah, Bush has lost, just like the Kennedys did.

You cannot have a same family ruling a country for generations, not nowadays, otherwise, change democracy to monarchy  :hihi:*

Their time is up.

Change of scenery.

NEXT

Our govt is doin ok. Better than the previous one.  : ok:

If you are tired of anti-Bush threads then don't read them.  It's not my fault that Bush is a horrible leader and that half of the US population is blinded by his misinformation.  I voted so I have earned the right to complain. 

Republican hate this, just like free speech.

I find it funny regardless of the title of this thread, you guys still post your Bush bitching here!

I bet you $1000 you will not be able to resist posting more anti Bush rhetoric here. 

France...now there`s a country we can bitch about!

LOL, start a thread on bashing France....you should rack up a grand total of 4 replies.....in a matter of weeks.

 Lol - I am a Liberal Canadian - I just want to see what other governments out there are approved of of despised.  There are citizens of all countries here and I wanted to hear what is going on in their own climates.  People here tend to equate Bush with Pol Pot...

"well thank god the world didn't get Al gore originally with that crazy bitch in tow"



could have fooled me.

Lol - Tipper gore is nuts - but that isn't the purpose of this thread.... Jello Biafra is afterall anti Bush and he can say the same thing...but then again - I'll chose the other thread(s) if I want to challenge any American politics

As Rain said, it's a question of influence on the world. In my opinion, Get a democrat and things will be fine (or at least better).

What are they doing with your health system?

I find it funny that regardless of the title of this thread you comment on france, which isnt your country.

the title of the thread is:  Bitch about other governments here- I'm sick of reading Anti-Bush Threads

so I brought up France..... 

...and France surrendered.

maybe not the titles of the thread then but

"Face it USA..........Bush won - I wanna hear about other countries worldwide.  How does the rest of the world rate their government?"

not your gov.

France doesn`t like the USA. They won`t even back us up on the war on terror ( and I'm not even talking about Iraq)

I'm sure they would back us up on the war on terror, if we actually had one!

C'mon bro...admit it, France was RIGHT. They knew the war in Iraq was bullshit.

(And don't chime in about the oil for food scandal, EVERYBODY was on the take, including the USA!)

Still one comment on health care in France.....

I guess the rest of the world is satisfied!!!  :rofl:

I want to hear Scandanavian scandals etc... is the world this complacent?

I am actually not too familiar with the current debate over health care in France.  Anyone care to explain it to someone that knows nothing about it? 

We back you up on war on terror for years ! We are on vigipirate plan as long as forever ... We had our share of terrrorism before 9-11. But I guess you're not aware of that either.

What is happening w/ our health system... that's a huge subject ...

In France when you are ill you go to the doctor that you choose. It cost 20 euros ... 14 are given back to you through "La securit? Sociale" and the rest in paid by your mutual insurance company. If your unemployed you have the CMU (couverture m?dicale universelle ?) you don't even need to pay the doctor it's all free - the doctor is paid afterward by the state.
Until now if you needed to see a specialist, you'd go there directly. W/ the new reform you have to go to your doc first and your doc will send you to a specialist.
And some drugs are now less reimbursed.

There are many other details but you can get the main lines of the new project.

This is horrible....

France 3

America the great superpower 0

 :no:

The French GOVERNMENT is a joke (well, except for their health care program which actually sound fair for their average citizens).  Their ignorance and weakness are apparent with their refraining from the War On Terror.  Hell, we all know the boy scouts could take over France if they wanted too...

Boy Scouts : France
France: Surrender
U.S. : Laughing

And that oil for food scandal is a joke.  Everyone was on the take and it's unfortunate that all parties directly responsible aren't revealed to the public :(

You just did the same thing as the other poster.

 :no:

the boy scouts? well hitler had a pretty tough time taking over france untill britain pulled out but i'm sure you have no idea what actually happened and prefer just blurting out 60 year old stereotypes.

And lets not forget that america never actually declared was on hitler, atleast france made that effort.

Not to go tit fot tat because I enjoyed my time in Paris but we did do a good job of coming over there and kicking Hitler's ass!

not at all. nobody is denying america played a huge role in defeating hitler.

however, the popular myth that france surrendered to hitler easily is simply that. a myth.

After the british collapse to dunkirk (hardly our finest moment, but certainly necessary) the french enurred losses at the same rate as they did during ww one. hardly an easy defeat.

Also note: if it weren't for the French we'd be singing "God save the Queen."

yeah, the french really hate the english. almost as much as the scots do....

I think the anti-french posts are ignorant and stupid.  However, I do find it interesting that if someone bashes France you will get 5 posters defending France, but if someone bashes the United States you will get 5 posters joining the bashing of the United States.

France didn't lead us into the Iraqi cluster fuck either.....

No wut I mean Vern?

Yeah right ... we had troops in Afganisthan ... we weren't that ignorant about Iraq ! We said they didn't have wmds ... guess what ?  :o ::)

And about the boy scout thing that's so stupid that I can just remind you we too have  nuclear weapons (Youpie hey  :P).  :-X :P

But at least I agree w/ you on something for me right now our governement is a joke when dealing w/ internal affairs ...  ::)

Do you like Football? Because the English championship would be nothing without the Frenchies. What would be Arsenal? and Liverpool? and Manchester City? and Fulham? Lots of frenchies also work in "The City", and you know it. It's false to say French "hate" English. Au contraire mon fr?re, we love it and vise versa. The only thing we didn't appreciate recently was the Olympic Games, it was political. Paris should have had the games. The only thing most of french don't like in England is the food. But nothing against the people.

English are arrogants, French think they can give lessons to everybody, to a certain extent we share the same values :hihi:
(autoderision mod on? ;D)

i don't really see your point.

Is it, simply because there are some french players in the premiership therefore france doesn't dislike england? Because thats not a point. Thats just two random pieces of information.

Yeah, and so does anybody with a few million dollars and the right connections.

maybe it's because a dozen times more people appreciate France more than the US...respect is earned not given or expected

Well I'll be dipped in shit.? What in the blue hell has France done over the last century to "earn" any respect or appreciation?

They have the utter nerve to stick their noses up at and judge the very country that helped bail their sorry asses out....TWICE.

(http://www.european-history.com/jpg/Paris_1940.jpg)

Speaking of the Third Reich, according to some here, the United States is worse than the Nazi's.

Here are some classic quotes from some Frenchies right here on this board about the U.S. dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan -


Instead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.? GREAT, and yar proud ?? You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

Mademoiselle aka Jessica? ? ? ? ?http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22212.20


i think it's even worst than the Nazi camps, because it was done by the ones that were supposed to be the good ones (USA).

WAT-EVER, i'm totally buggin? ? ? ? ? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=21933.0


All France does, and has ever done, is point fingers from the sidelines without ever sticking it's neck out.? And the same cowardice, appease the enemy attitude they had back in the 1930's obviously continues today regarding terrorism.


that what's i have been trying to tell english people, tony blair has made ennemies and although you diss chirac, we won't have bombs.

Mademoiselle aka Jessica? ? ? ? ?http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=21788.0



Tell me again why Americans should give a flying fuck what France or any other nation thinks???

Tell me again why Americans should give a flying fuck what France or any other nation thinks???

We have already shown that we don't, and look where that got us.....

What did france achieve in the last century ?

Good question ... verry good question ... I think we achieve a lot ... we were on the middle of two world wars ! The first we won (well if one million men lost in four year is to be seen as a victory) alongside the english. We decolonized ... we created Europe alongside Germany (our long time enemy) ... we achieve durable peace with all our neighbours. That's already a lot if you ask me.

But we may talk about what we had done for you in the 18th century ? I don't know why lately you don't like to be reminded of Lafayette ... or care about Montesquieu's theory on checks and balance (Locke's wasn't the only one  ;D). Thanks the age of Enlightenment in Europe for your Constitution.

yet another american with a bigger penis (and smaller brain) complex

besides you know little of WW1...of which the americans took very little part...apart from a few minor battles, the fact is most of their troops arrived in 1918 just in time for the end of the war...how convenient...and besides only a part of france was occupied, of course you probably know little of the trench warfare that ensued for the 3 years before the americans finally joined the war...if france has anyone to thank it would be the british and of course its own troops who held the lines for such a long time...so why should i show respect for an army that never showed up until the final months? or midway in WW2 or the failure in korea and vietnam and now iraq twice, not to mention afghanistan where the taliban are now regrouping...is it because the american governments havent got a clue what theyre doing?

do i respect france, of course...after 2 major wars with its neighbour it doesnt take retribution for those wars, it is trying to find commonalities of trade and  commerce thanks to the EU...and the wounds that happened 60 years ago are healed to the point where only a small scar remains...now thats what i call respect...that also applies to many other countries in the EU like Britain, Italy, Poland etc...an amazing transformation if you ask me...thats the difference between america and the EU, USA seeks to cause havoc while the EU is trying to bring everyone together

France being "in the middle of two world wars" wasn't an achievment per se. ?Just bad luck being right next door to Germany. ?But thank God for Britain and the United States. ?Ya know? ?The two countries France AND Germany love to badmouth now.


Once again, in the last century.

That you have to go back to the 18th century just proves my point toots. ? :-*

Funny that some people here always complain about anti-US posts/ threads, then a thread is started to "bitch about other governments" (our own I guess, cuz there's bad stuff everywhere anyway, France for instance is FAR from being perfect)...and after a few posts all I read is random anti-French comments and people who nicely defend us. I thank them for that, but the anti-xxxx comments are not needed in the first place.

I'd be the first to criticize my lame government (and other lame things about France) but if we can't have an adult discussion and have to come back to the "we won WWII and saved your ass" comments every time, I don't see the point.

Anyway, the first thing that worries me about France is that we have a very bad workforce system, 10 million people are unemployed and it's tough as fuck to find a job here. French people complain about the US/ UK systems that have less unemployment but a higher rate of temp jobs and less job security. Fair enough, when I ask what their solution is, the only answer I have is: "huuuhh...". Anyway, so that's one thing. Rain covered the healthcare issues basically. I'm also tired as fuck to be ruled by old farts (if Chirac is reelected - which I hope won't happen, he'll be almost 80 at the end of his mandate). Most politicians in France are old and don't get what the people want/ need, they don't understand the youth especially. They don't know what it is to look for an apartment or a job. That's the biggest problem I have with our politicians here I think. They're just so estranged from the French people that they just don't get it, they try to set up new laws/ systems and every time we get angry because they never listen to us.

Anyway, here's a start. ;) And btw, except for SLC, I rarely read anti-US comments here from other US posters. Does it mean SLC covers everything that you find bad?

People are highly critical of the USA for their war machine in the middle east. This fiasco has more than half the country upset with the government, why would you think the rest of th world would feel any different?

All governments are flawwed. But no change comes if you just fall in line and repeat the mantra you are told to.

America is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately propaganda is one of them, and when the precious box in our living room tells us France sucks, then we are bound to repeat it without asking why.

Actually I think my dick size is below average unfortunately.? Other guys' tendency to exaggerate notwhithstanding...



I've always given Britain equal credit with the United States for both wars.? They're the only European country that has really ever had any balls.? Then or now.

As far as WWII goes, barring say Britain or Russia, the United States did more for the Allied effort in both theaters than any other country.


Like I said, it's easy to point fingers when your country is never willing to stick it's neck out.? What are France and most other European countries doing to fight Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or international terroism in general?? I mean besides a token effort here or there.? Diplomacy and sanctions are going to only work for so long.? Sooner or later you will have to get your hands dirty.


My point is if France wants to do things a different way, than fine.? Just don't criticize other countries who decide to take a more pro-active stance against terrorists and terrorist-states;with or without the Iraq war.

So you're saying you don't want Hillary to win if she runs?

Really ? Re-read your history books ! WWI took place for the most part in the north east of France - We own the british a great deal of respect as they were fighting this war on our soil. But you are right we never had any balls at all and Napoleon was  Italian ...  :P Oh excuse me again you were only speaking about the 20th century ... You erase history as the centuries end. If you are not to be thankful for Lafayette and Montesquieu ... well we're on the 21th century what happened in the 20th doesn't count. So what happened during ww2 I can quite remember ..  ::) :P

And for France fighting terrorism, we've been confronted w/ it for decades so that's not something new ... By the way a french soldier just died in Afghanisthan ... I agree w/ my government on that, it's better to fight islamist terrorists where they really are ... I have the feeling you'll have the nerve to tell me they are in Iraq now and that we're still doing nothing about it. But who's brought them there ?

I know this whole thread is ridicilous but somehow I do feel a bit insulted, to hear that the Finnish ain't got balls, dude you really should read some european history.

For our independence I thank the Germans, thank you guys :beer:

youre an idiot

The score now.....

France 4

Dumb Americans (who don't know their history) 0.  :-[

I'm aware of many of France's signature achievements going back a number of centuries.? That's why I said "in the last hundred years."? My (and a lot of Americans) beef with France is relatively recent.?

As far as Napoleon goes, certainly one of the greatest generals in history, but he seems to get more negative press these days.


A French soldier died huh?? One whole soldier.? Wow.

As for terrorists in the Iraq front, I completely agree that the United States has "brought them there."? That's kind of the idea.? Yes, it creates more recruits for the enemy but the fighting is mostly contained within that region.

While I'm under no allusions that terrorists don't desire to do something even bigger than 9/11, I think there is something to be said regarding the fact the United States hasn't had another terrorist attack since than.

Lastly, you say you agree with your government that it's better to fight Islamist terrorists where they really are.?

Pray tell, where are they?

Nuh uh.

Ah SLC, the model of objectivity.? Where would we ever find a more non-partisan referee than you?? ?::)? ? :P

Well, you are right, I am prejudice against dumb asses.....sorry.

I do favor intelligent people, who know what they are talking about too.

Rain does a good job of that. ;D

Thanks SLC that was very kind of you ;)

And to answer Pazzuzu (or whoever that guest might be... Rover? ??? ) : I've already answered it was utterly stupid to ask what France has achieved in last century ... and it's easy for you to never mention that Europe has achieved P E A C E in the last century ! For you guys achievements have always to be connected with wars wars wars - victory victory victory -

And for the death of the french soldier ... I mentionned it because it happened the same day you were telling us France wasn't fighting terrorism ... how come you always forget the context in which things are said? ??? And if our death toll doesn't impress you I'd rather be happy for my country ... we are not in Iraq !? :P

Yes, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Very peaceful place ::)

As late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe couldn't even get rid of a small time dictator like Miloscevic. Europe had to call on the US, yet again, to bomb his genocidal ass out of power.

Yeah right ...  ::) Not only Europe fault for this mess ... France and other European countries were the ones sending UN soldiers there for years before USA bombed anything !  ::) :-X :P

But have you seen a major war between French and Germans lately ? My grand ather fought two WW. And his father before him fought the 1870 one ... My grandmother was born german because Lorraine was split in two. If you think it's an easy thing to overcome the hatred of millions people deaths  and sufferings ? I guess you're actually mistaken. It takes a great deal of courage and it is a great achievement !   :P

Duh! That's the point? ::)? Your UN soldiers didn't get the job done (in fact they stood on the side while massacres occurred) and in the end you had to call on that damn evil US to finish the job.

Of course the UN didn't grant them with the right to fire ...  ::)

But why should they do that?? I thought they had the magical ability to bring about peace through reasoning and negotiations ???

That is all you can do, when you don't have an argument. It's: Change the context, lie, leave things out, attack and insult the poster, and Strawman.


But you have to hand it to them, they take orders and follow Karl Rove very well. The strategy with Rove has always been: repeat it until it hurts, and eventually it will become the truth. Half our country was stupid enough to fall for that line of reason. Why shouldn't these guys on the board try it as well?

I've never done that before but you are a moron !
Ask the USA about not giving any power when it comes down to UN intervention ... of course it doesn't apply when the USA is involved !  ::)
And we have learned since then ... not to send troops before the UN defines what they are to do there ... Dafour is just waiting for it right now ... if someone cares.

You just brought up more evidence as to why the UN is ineffective. Looks like we're on the same page about that.

Ever thought of why the UN is ineffective?

Because some countries just don't wanna be part of it and rather start wars on their own?




/jarmo

(raising hand) I do!

But first...is there oil there????

The refusal of which country to be a part of the UN rendered it ineffective in stopping the Srebrenica massacre?

You said the UN is ineffective, I thought you meant it still is.


I wasn't talking about that case.





/jarmo

And now it becomes just another chicken or egg problem. Is the UN ineffective because the US supposedly does not want to be a part of it, or does the US occasionally ignore it because it has proven itself to be ineffective time and again ...

"The received version [of events] ... is that Bill Clinton and Al Gore vowed to "bomb the Serbs" and end the war when they were shocked to learn that thousands of Muslims had been massacred at Srebrenica. But, the reader cannot help asking, was news of this impending massacre -- the worst in Europe since 1945 -- really not available to America's two most powerful figures beforehand?

At earlier stages in Bosnia's war, when Muslim strongholds like Gorazde or Bihac had been on the verge of falling, America had worked (without the promise of ground troops) to galvanise its allies -- insisting that battle-plans be drawn up, and threats of bombing be issued, so as to warn off the Serbs. Yet in the final days and hours of the advance on Srebrenica, which American intelligence could monitor closely, Washington fell strangely silent. Srebrenica duly fell, with consequences which were unspeakable in human terms, but not inconvenient diplomatically.

Perhaps it is conspiratorial to assume that America's tardy reaction to Srebrenica reflected calculation rather than negligence. But the question needs asking "

From the Economist 2001

you mean the USA?

To be fair, it's both and depends on which situation we're talking about at any given time.

The problem without a US-led UN is it's toothless.  Most other countries are able to "abstain" from a UN Action that , for whatever reason, they don't agree with...or support the action in a token manner.  Not true with the US.  If we don't participate....there's no action, or essentially there is no action.  So, without the US, the UN become ineffective...so, both of the above become true. 

The UN become ineffetive if the US does not "join in", but, because our participation is the engine driving the car, we sometimes ignore the UN, if they are too hard to convince, strong arm, cajole, or "bribe" them around to our way of thinking.

Conspiracy theories aside, here's timeline (from the BBC of all rabidly anit-American sources) of the events that took place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm The US had nothing to do with it. Besides, had the US gotten involved and bombed the Serb army before the massacre happened, the same people who now condemn America for not acting, would have been up in arms that the US is "trigger-happy,"? "imperialist," etc...

Anyway, the essence of my argument was that Europe has not been able to achieve peace as Rain claimed. When you put the blame on Clinton for not acting, that only serves to reinforce my point that Europe is incapable of achieving peace, even on its home-turf, without US help.

A rather limited source of information...maybe you should look at the wider picture before quoting a narrow one

try this one
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=8244

america was involved, if you actually read about it..but all of the UN should share the blame, that includes the US

the problems in Yugoslavia have been known for a century and since it is composed on numerous ethnic groups that are just so different conflict has always been looming...has Europe achieved peace...of course it has...in the most...but this part of Europe bears some of the worst scars of any country in Europe and it will take time for it to return to something resembling normality...to act like as if the US won the day for these people is taking things to the ridiculous because its going to take decades for this country to return to normal and besides no one really won anyway...

Ridiculous? Who finally got rid of Milosevic? And have there been any large scale atrocities since he was ousted? It was most certainly the US that saved the day for Kosovars. Whether that was the right decision I'm not so sure. But none of this changes the fact that Europe is still not capable of pacifying itself without US intervention.

The things that went on in the former Yugoslavia shouldn't have happened.

The rest of the world failed to prevent it from happening, that's really sad and a huge failure.



/jarmo

The Yugoslavians?

By the time Milosevic called elections in September 2000, the country was crippled by sanctions, and many Serbs were living in desperate poverty.

Montenegro - the only republic still with Serbia in Yugoslavia - was threatening to break away, and there was an atmosphere of fear and instability across the federation.

When Milosevic refused to recognise the election victory of opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, and a national strike was declared. One by one, key allies dropped their support, including the Serbian Orthodox church and parts of the state media.

Confidence grew, and 10 days after the election protesters stormed the parliament and the state TV station, setting both buildings on fire. Many policemen took off their helmets and joined the protesters. Milosevic's empire had crumbled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2000/milosevic_yugoslavia/downfall.stm

absolutely laughable...its like im talking to someone who acts like he knows what he is saying without him reading any history books...it was the people who removed Milosevic just like Rockin Rose said...it was a Yugoslavian revolution...come on, give the credit where the credit is due and give your machismo a rest...

It wasn't the Yugoslavian people that stopped the attack on Kosovo. And no one can deny that Clinton's bombing during the Kosovo war played a big role in destabilizing Milosevic's regime. So, yeah, Rockin' Rose was right in correcting my implication that the US was responsible for the "final" removal of Milosevic. Does it change the crux of my argument that Europe was incapable of pacifying itself without US intervention? NO. Are you being petty by jumping on my mistake and saying that I'm laughable and I don't know what I'm talking about? Unless you're omniscient, YES.

you mean the illegal bombings that claimed 1500 civilians lives? sure it had something to do with it...but in a country that was surrounded by propaganda and very little outside media i doubt it had that much effect, in fact it probably had both a negative and positive effect because there is no doubt that many would support their president more because their own country is being bombed when the bombings resulted in killing over a thousand civilians...

the truth is if it wasnt for those civilians in the uprising after the 2000 election (which happened a good 15 months after the bombings btw) then milosevic would probably still be in power...

Clinton's bombing had an effect because it destroyed a lot of infrastructure which in the long term made it difficult for Milosevic to keep even his supporters happy. On top of that, the sanctions made it impossible to rebuilt, which further eroded his support. Hence, a little over a year after the bombings, key allies started dropping support for him. Had that not happened, and had those policemen, for example, remained on his side rather than dropping their helmets and joining protesters, we'd have a completely different outcome. Other than that, I agree with your post.

George Bush has run this country through the coals so to speak.  All of the people who were proclaiming on how great Bush is, this time last year leading up to the election, it seems now are re-evaluating just what in the hell they were thinking.

His address the other night on tv from New Orleans, admitting his faults in the wake of hurricane Katrina. All that was about was to try and gain sympathy for himself.  An "oil man" is running or trying to run this country. That sums up basically every reason we are fighting the war on Iraq. 

People can bad mouth the Clinton administration all they want but take a good look back ten years ago, and evaluate the shape of the country. The economy was great, unemployment rates were at the lowest they were in years, then fast forward ten years. What a drastic downfall, all brought on by one very evil man. 

....and there you have it folks!

The arrogant, condescending, elitist attitude displayed right there is among the prime reasons half of us decided to keep Bush in office.

 :yes:

So let's see here...


Scenario #1 (what some think should have happened)

The United States doesn't invade Iraq and the U.N. and Saddam keep up the cat-and-mouse game they've been playing for a decade.

U.N. = Ineffective


Scenario #2 (what some think has happened)

The United States actually enforces a U.N. resolution by invading Iraq, thereby somehow making the U.N. =

Ineffective


Either way the United Nations is ineffective and it's all America's fault.? ? ::)? ? :P? ? :confused:

Talk about overdoing it. I did not post in that size or bold.

haha, but from a group that likes to rewrite history, can I be suprised?  :rofl:

Hey you....Jack Mormon...why do you keep registering under different names?

So I can't clip and paste your words against you, like I did before when you had a real ID here?

Or to create confusion so we can't keep up and call you on your lies?

Or both?

I'm gonna go with....both!

You hide because you know your wrong.....



Edit: Ahhhh....Looking back I see. Each fight you lose, you come back. Rain whipped you last round, so you get angry and come back from the ashes. To arise and humiliate yourself again......

"The arrogant, condescending, elitist attitude displayed right there is among the prime reasons half of us decided to keep Bush in office."



Latest CNN Poll shows that:

"Support for his management of the war in Iraq has dropped to 32 percent."

Looks like the dumb are starting to wake up from their Fox induced slumber!

To Popmetal dude : When I said that we achieve peace in Europe it was in relation with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1954 that led to the Rome treatyin 1957 and the creation of the European Union. Since then no wars between its members ... that was the first aim of Robert Schuman and Jean Monet (but I have the feeling you never heard of them).
Yougoslavia was in no way in the EU ... and the faillure that took place down there is to all to endorse.

Then you need to get your terms straight. Right now, Europe and the EU are two different things.

FYI Europe is synonymous with the European Union and they often used interchangeably, like America is synonymous with the USA...

Actually, the country side America re-elected one of the worst US Presidents ever. People from Nevada, Nebraska, or Montana who were afraid mean Iraqis (even though actually most of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis) would fly into their...errr...Taco Bell. Boat people (hello, West Coast and East Coast) didn't want Bush back. Kerry did insane numbers in Manhattan (9/11), and even in New Orleans for instance. You right-wing fanatics were just lucky the fear factor worked (thanks Mr. Rove). We can just be thankful this won't happen again...

...unless Cheney tries to replace Bush - !

Btw, are guests allowed to post here?

Uhhhm, no! Many nations including Ukraine, Moldova, Switzerland, Serbia and Montenegro, Albania, Iceland, Belarus, and Norway are in Europe but are not a part of the EU? (these are just a few off the top of my head, there are more if you want to look them up).?Maybe someday the two will be interchangeable, but right now they are not.


That's because America is often used as shorthand for the United States of AMERICA .

So if you had a difference of opinion at the start of the war, but now agree that it is being managed poorly you are dumb?  Interesting.  At least these people are fair minded and can find fault in their previous views.  I actually think its comendable.  I certainly wouldn't call them dumb.

Dumb for choosing to support the war and not ask questions, not for changing their opinion.

No, but there seems to be some people who register and then deletes their accounts.

Maybe we should start deleting their posts when they're not even here to continue the discussion.




/jarmo

Both are still wrong. What are you arguing about?

Many people confuse EU with Europe.

A lot of people speak about Europe when they only mean Western Europe.

Some people speak about Europe hating USA when they only mean a part of France or Germany.


/jarmo

It depends on the context ... it's an ability you seem to lack obviously. In France when you talk about the EU you talk about l'EUROPE. Europe can have a geographic meaning or a political meaning. Try to find which one I was talking about.
And this confusion of you isn't the actual topic at hand. I was trying to explain to you that the first aim of the founder fathers of the EU was to achieve peace between its members : it's done !  :P

I'm curious, are you going to do this?

Ecuadorian Goverment sucks!, all their politics are there just for the money meanwhile there's lack of education, the medicine is very expensive and all doctors are not well payed, The corruption is so stick in the country that even the policies and law are highly corrupted. If you wanna drink till you drop you can do it if a cop stops you you can give a lousy $10 bill and he set you free and kill innocent people like it has happened before, even celebrities here do that. If you get capture you can pay to the lawyer and the judge to set you free. So i think this country is going nowhere but down.  :no:

nope wrong

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Europe

Europe

n 1: the 2nd smallest continent (actually a vast peninsula of Eurasia); the British use `Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles [syn: Europe] 2: an international organization of European countries formed after World War II to reduce trade barriers and increase cooperation among its members; "he took Britain into Europe" [syn: European Union, EU, European Community, EC, European Economic Community, EEC, Common Market, Europe] 3: the nations of the European continent collectively; "the Marshall Plan helped Europe recover from World War II" [syn: Europe]





and rubbish, the united states didnt exist when the name america was coined

from wikipedia

"Both North and South America are named after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a previously undiscovered (by Europeans) New World." 

When all else fails...look it up! ;D

Are we really arguing over use of the term "Europe" and the term "America"?

It seems to be true, but the Dictionary was brought out in a nick of time...... :hihi:

;D Yah, I guess some disputes are quickly sovled with the click of a button and a little cutting and pasting,

haha, although this might be the only case where it was resolved..

I guess we are since these people are only here to start shit and then they delete their accounts.




/jarmo

People do that?, that's so coward!  :-\

when the proof has been given, no more arguing is needed 

The source of that dictionary.com entry is Princeton's WordNet project, that's not even a real dictionary ::)

here's the full Oxford American Dictionary entry for Europe:


This is from an actual DICTIONARY, not a science experiment.


Where's the Strawman Police now?

OK, in that case this is a cultural misunderstanding. Sorry, but I don't live in France. The EU has certainly been a success in that sense. Then again the idea of a war between France and Germany seems laughable now. Gloating about it would be similar to? the US gloating about achieving peace with Mexico.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive source of English
European - relating to Europe or the European Union.

from wikipedia
In practice, the borders of Europe are often drawn with greater regard to political, economic, and other cultural considerations. This has led to there being several different Europes that are not always identical in size, including or excluding countries according to the definition of Europe used.
In another usage, Europe is increasingly being used as a short-form for the European Union (EU) and its members, currently consisting of 25 member states.

Besides since you are "American" and have no idea of the terminology that is used over here...nonetheless the word Europe and the EU are used interchangeably over here...

I'm European who lives in America (though I can't wait to get citizenship so I can proudly claim that I am American). I still think that saying Europe can be ambiguous (I guess that can also be true when saying America to refer to the US). Either way, we're arguing over semantic details that are pretty much irrelevant to this topic. To restate my point using terms we can agree on, as late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe, as in the EU, was incapable of pacifying violent conflicts on the continent Europe without American intervention.

You and millions of others.   : ok:  Welcome!

Thanks? :beer: That's the difference between Europeans who say they like America and want to come here, and Americans who constantly criticize American and say they'll move to Europe or Canada. We don't just talk, we actually do it.

America can still be a great country. There is a lot of work to get it back again.

America IS a great country.  Look around at other countries on this planet and tell me that america isn't amoung the great places to live from almost every aspect of life.

Yes, America is still a great country but we have to do some house keeping in our own house before we hire ourselves out to clean everywhere.

It can be better. Our government needs to learn to rule by law again, not force. Some people forget the principles this country was founded on.

Ok off topic at this point...
I started this thread to see what the problems are in other countries... we simply don't get much news of them here.  This is turning into an american thread again.  Someone bitch about Norway, Iceland, Hong Kong please....

haha, this turned American almost immediately.... :hihi:

I can bitch about Sweden. The country where people are always condemning other countries for things they do wrong but nobody seems to bother fixing the things that are wrong here.

People seem more upset about the prime minister building a new mansion than about the problems with unemployment, health care and education etc.

People here go to Germany and Denmark to buy alcohol because the alcohol taxes are so high here. Yet we have politicians who think it's not a good idea to lower the alcohol tax. They still believe the "Swedish way" is the only way to battle problems with drinking. Hight prices = less drinking.

No wonder only about 25% of the alcohol consumed in this country is actually legally bought in the state owned liquor stores.





/jarmo

Well, I didn't bitch about these countries, but I bitched about mine (cuz I thought it was the thread's subject). Maybe you missed my post:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22519.msg392686#msg392686

We, french, have this ability : we are able to complain about everything. Even when the party we voted for is in office !  ;D

No i did see your post and was thankful for you writing it!  I am not a Chirac fan myself

Norway

In spite of sky high taxes and considerable oil wealth, the welfare system has major shortcomings. Hospitals are understaffed. There aren't enough kindergartens and child care costs are too high. Oil prices are as high as those in oil-less countries, even though Norway is stacked with North Sea oil.

Italy

Silvio Berlusconi has used his power to ensure that his personal business interests flourish, while failing to implement the reforms he promised, including higher tax cuts and less regulation. As a result, the Italian economy has been stagnant and the outlook for economic growth is bleak. The only thing that's growing in Italy is the budget deficit. On top of that, to combat his declining popularity, his ruling coalition recently changed Italy's election rules to give themselves an advantage. He is beginning to look more like a corrupt African ruler than a democratically elected European prime minister. Berlosconi and his party are an embarrassment to Italy and all of Europe.

China

Where do I start?!?

Corruption is massive and widespread on the local level. If bloggers and independent newspapers try to write about and expose it, they end up in jail.

The Chinese government is subsidizing oil prices. Essentially, it is subsidizing and encouraging environment pollution (I thought the left was supposed to be pro environment ???) Also, because it is cheaper for Chinese consumers to buy oil, they buy more of it, which artificially raises demand and worldwide prices. This is bad for China itself because it's over-stimulating the growth of their economy and they are gonna be in for a hard landing when a correction occurs. And it's bad for the world because it exaggerates prices everywhere else. Poor developing countries who can't afford to match such subsidies are especially hard hit.

Their government is communist but China has one of the biggest wealth gaps between rich and poor in the world ::) What does that tell you?

Well, an encyclopedia can be written about what's wrong with China's government. In a way, it's not even fair to bitch about them, because everything is wrong with a communist government by definition.

Um, the Chinese are not leftist, in the same way we define it here in the US.  And they're certainly not liberals.? Communism has no concept of environmentalism.

Keep building that Strawman. I never said they were liberals? ::)



Then why do all the self proclaimed Communists on college campuses bitch about how the corporations are ruining the environment and we need Communism to save it?

And where did I say you did? Oh, that's right, I didn't.  I said they weren't leftists and then ADDED they weren't liberals.  The first part was a response to your assertion about the left caring about the environment.  The second a follow up, since liberals are also the most concerned with the environment. 

Try to follow, eh?


You'd have to ask them that question.  But real world Communism has no real concept, in practice, of environmentalism.  The USSR didn't, and Russian and China still don't.  Foreign words to them.

Oh, I'm following. I just want to see how you like arguing with people who take what you say out of context and accuse you of saying things you didn't say.

Funny, China are now "leftist"?

I thought you were from Eastern Europe and knew the difference between the Soviet Union, China and somebody who's on the left....

I guess anybody who isn't a republican is a communist...  :hihi:



/jarmo

Strawman

you were the one who came up with the left thing about China ... If you can't make a diff?rence between communism and environmentalism it's hard for you to tell Jarmo he's using a strawman.  ::) :P

here's another one. keep the strawmen coming. but you'll have to burn them yourself since I'm not falling for it

Jesus ....? ::)

You were the one talking about China = communists not dealing w/ ecology ... than you were being asked since when communism deals w/ ecology ... it doesn't ...

I'm going to quote you it will be clearer :



It's you here that are mixing up communism with the left and environmentalism. Not pilferk, not Jarmo.
You can twist it the way you want your statement is wrong ! Period !

Just to clear up any confusion, I am not mixing up communism with the left and environmentalism.
The left is generally concerned with the environment. Communism is a form of extreme left-wing government.? In theory, a communist country should be very concerned with the environment. China is not. That's why I criticized them. I'm not criticizing the left in general and/or environmentalism in general.

That's why I think this thread would be better if people would bitch about their own government. :)

We agree to a certain point - communism is indeed and some parties in the left are concerned about environmentalism but not all. So in theory environmentalism and communism don't mix !

But about the core of the question of course I guess we all agree to say China should care about environmentalism as should any other country. But if we were to find an excuse, they are trying to pace up w/ USA and Europe ... I know another country that didn't sign Kyoto agreements that is actually fully developped.

Is this the UK Labour government showing their true colours...Stifling of free speech and no concern for their party members...unbelievable



------------------------------------------

Headlines about an 82-year old Jewish escapee from the Nazis being manhandled out of Labour conference for daring to yell "nonsense" at the Foreign Secretary is probably not the way Tony Blair wanted to end this rally.

   
Walter Wolfgang

Heckler ejected

But, for many regular conference visitors, this was far from a surprise.

Ever-tightening security and a distinctly intolerant attitude towards "interruptions", as the prime minister called them, meant this was a headline waiting to happen.

There have been a few examples of it in the recent past.

Most notably, the prime minister was mid-speech last year when a hunting protester attempted a freestyle heckle only to be instantly grabbed by "burly bouncers" and helped to the exit.

No one who was there will forget the incongruity of the prime minister telling the man he was lucky to live in a free society where such things were allowed - just as he was being bundled out of the hall surrounded by stewards.

------------------------------

read more here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm