EU as joke (modified)

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.

What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?

Show me an effective, independent Palestinian State and
I will concede self rule. Until then it is simply an empty,
political promise.

The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.

Because I am correct.

No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
under international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.

You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

The Baathists were celebrating

"Shared by many" is not an issue, what
some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.

We think, then act. Europe thinks, then hides.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool. The structure
of the questions

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias. The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University. The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.

You hire several of our "think tanks" to design a structure,
and then argue that we were "heavily involved". The
US Government will never ratify such an anti-US agreement.
Ex-president Clinton signed it on his last day in office, along
with pardons for his convict buddies and a lot of other utterly
ridiculous things. It did NOT signify support for the ICC in the
US. Our Congress would never agree to cede our
sovereignty.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.

I, of course, know nothing of your experiences, by that would
be a single instance.

In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.

Regards...

True, ours are fact based, not fantasy.

Al Minyard