EU as joke (modified)

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical
action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01. Try again....

Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how
many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.


Just returned from 3 weeks in GE and BE and went out one night with a Belgian
who is a future brother-in-law of one of the guys in my office. Spent over 3
hours talking with him, also had lunch and dinner with a few SHAPE officers. At
least the SHAPE officers understand the reality of American politics, one in
fact thought the whole European "cowboy" persona was a horrible blunder of
international politics.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:53:38 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...

In contrast to
your assertion that "the real reasons for the increasing tension between
Europe
and America are the different cultural values...." they and others,
including
the Italian poet and novelist Roberto Pazzi ("Conclave"), emphasized that
our
values are the same.
I'll take their word for it--not yours.

The two statements are not contradictory: "Values" is a plural
concept. It is true that Americans and Europeans share a lot of
values; it is also true that on a number of important points, our
values are different. Shared values have the potential of holding
the transatlantic alliance together; differences in opinion, especially
when voiced with the grating repetition that is so characteristic
of US politics, are driving it apart.

I certainly hope so. An alliance with Europe costs the US in
both treasure and lives. We should let Europe collapse on
its own.

There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions,
as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having
a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and
ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the
point of Civil War. In a sense it is less the difference of opinions
between Europeans and Americans that is driving them apart,
than the contempt publicly shown by people who ought to know
better --- for example Rumsfeld's jibe about 'Old Europe'.

Democracy has broken down in Europe. It is doing just fine
in the US. "Old europe" is the correct term for criminals like
Chirac.

And I am frankly sick and tired of the intellectual laziness and
dishonesty of a certain kind of Americans, who dismiss any
foreign critique of current US policy (and that is policy, not
even culture or values) as anti-Americanism. (Just like they
dismiss similar criticism, when it comes from their own
countrymen, as un-American.)

Europe is clearly anti-American, but they try to hide it
because we feed them, guard them from their enemies, etc.

As if the fact that someone doesn't like the ideas of George W. Bush
and his cronies also implies a dislike of all Americans, including
John Doe, who lives in Maine and didn't even vote for him...

If you hate the US so much you can go to He** for all we care.

Al MInyard

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
intellectual laziness.

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical
action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how
many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.



Regards...

You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
Country that has saved them on several occasions.

Al Minyard

So what was the reason behind invasion of Iraq?
Was it :

snip

Quite simply I believe it was combination of points a) to h) with some j)'s
added to it.

I disagree, probably a through f. Which in and of itself is reason enough. If
Saddam had no ties to international terrorism, can someone explain why Abu
Abbas was there? And why was Abu Nidal killed in a Baghdad hotel? This is where
Germany, Belgiam, Russia and France differ with the US. We believed he was
hiding chemical and/or biological weapons (so did the UN) and we believed his
ties to terrorism were enough to make him an immediate threat. A large chunck
of western Europe disagreed, fine. France threatened to veto a UN resolution
authorizing force, fine. But don't expect the US to have its foreign policy
dictated by the UN. No one in the UN, particularly France would put up with
that so why the huge outcry when the US, feeling its national security is
threatened, bypasses the UN? Its hipocritical, on one hand many western
Europeans gripe about being "targeted" by anger from the US simply because they
didn't agree with the US on Iraq and on the other hand, can't accept the US
disagreeing with them and acting in Iraq.

So we have concluded that regime change in Iraq wouldn't be that bad. Now we
just have to sell it to the people. People in USA are still suffering from
the shock of WTC, so we decide to use that fear as a leverage : we mention
WMD and terrorism.

Which, true or not, was what we perceived to be the facts. Good article in the
Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on why, if there really are
no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain led the US, the UN and the rest
of the world into believing he *may* have them. Also of note in the article is
the assistance and guidance provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till
the final hours before OIF began.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

There's no shortage of contempt for America and this current
administration coming from Europe. In fact, European contempt for
Bush was being voiced even before he was officially President!

Absolutely true.

The sooner the US returns to a policy of neo-isolationism, the better
off we'll all be, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

Agreed.

I no longer
much care what you on the other side think.

I no longer care what *most* of Europe thinks, but I still believe a very
benificial relationship can be maintained with the UK and our new friends in
eastern Europe.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 03 Nov 2003 17:54:23 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

Good article in the Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on
why, if there really are no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain
led the US, the UN and the rest of the world into believing he *may*
have them. Also of note in the article is the assistance and guidance
provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till the final hours before
OIF began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...

(snip utter crap not worth repeating, as usual)

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

Or Chirac's attempt to "put under his thumb" any eastern European nation
who
supported the US against Iraq.

I agree that Chirac should have shut up, too. On the other hand
he had a point: Members of the EU should at least try to speak
with one voice when dealing with the US.

Why? The world certainly DOES NOT hear one voice from the United States. In
fact I would say some of the most corrosive, disrespectful criticism comes
from other elected US officials. Go read the remarks of Sen. Byrd or Sen.
Kennedy or Gov. Dean. That is the whole point of a free and open society.
The chance to voice your views without being told to shut up by people who
disagree with you.



Such opinions were formed over such things as his Texas accent, his
and Cheney's work in the oil buisness and the fact he had a ranch in
Texas. Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk
about intellectual laziness.

His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky, unworldly
style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion that someone
could give speeches like that and take himself seriously is past
belief. European leaders who have met George W. actually praise
him as an intelligent and charming interlocutor, so one must assume
that he does it on purpose...

His public speaking makes me cringe also.


--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky, unworldly
style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion that someone
could give speeches like that and take himself seriously is past
belief. European leaders who have met George W. actually praise
him as an intelligent and charming interlocutor, so one must assume
that he does it on purpose...

GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very unsophisticated
for a politico. But he comes across to me as "honest" in intent
(contrary to his predecessor, who was very smooth talking and had a
great delivery).

Bush reminds me a bit more like Truman, who also was not an
especially exciting public speaker, especially when compared with
his predecessor.

I too have read and heard that GW comes across much more favorably
one-on-one, than in a "speech" setting.

It's just natural capability or lack thereof. I don't think he's
being purposely inarticulate or unenthusiastic when he speaks.

Didn't Churchill always have detailed notes as to what he was going
to say in a speech? Weren't some of his stammers during speeches
there by design as well? I read or heard somewhere that he might
spend 4 hours in preparation for a speech for every hour of delivery.

In any case, Churchill was clearly a brilliant speech deliverer. GW
simply isn't.


SMH

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police , Emmanuel
Gustin blurted out:

To most Europeans the notion that someone could give
speeches like that and take himself seriously is past belief.

Ahhh, you have missed some GREAT comedy if you've never seen Saturday
Night Live and the hilarious skits of GWB speeches/debates.

There is also a growing collection of books aimed at his unique
linguistic talent.

Juvat